“But as an industry, I think we need to start figuring it out more and not relying on the purely visual side of our skillset to get us through.”
A few posts earlier you referenced a Seth Godin quote – “Ideas that spread, win” – I want everything to be well designed, but it’s only one piece of a successful web-anything – and as designers, we need to admit to ourselves that even ugly ideas can spread…
and as designers, we need to admit to ourselves that even ugly ideas can spread…
— Grant Blakeman
Shout it from the rooftops. (Even if it hurts your design sensibilities.)
I think one’s foundational goals or reasons for building something really matter in this discussion. I don’t disagree with the idea that “even ugly ideas can spread”. That’s obvious at this point. But I do think that building something that is beautiful and highly refined, even at the cost of the masses, can be worth it if it’s part of the goal. Take Apple, for example. Jobs and Co. are fanatical about making an amazingly great, amazingly beautiful and perfect product, and always have been. It’s never been the goal to get the most raw numbers, the biggest market share, etc. A big part of the fundamental reason they do what they do, is for the pure joy of making something perfect (or as close to perfect as they can strive for).
I think if your goal is to build something that has a level of refinement and class and beauty, then you can be content in knowing that it almost certainly will NOT be embraced by the masses…and you can be OK with that. If your goal is sheer numbers, then by all means: study Orkut, MySpace, and the rest of the ugly, wildly effective, SN hubs.
Just my 2¢. Fascinating topic though, to be sure.
If your goal is sheer numbers, then by all means: study Orkut, MySpace, and the rest of the ugly, wildly effective, SN hubs.
I think studying those sites is less about aesthetics and more about why people are using them. At least that’s my motivation. In other words, I’m less interested in the fact that those sites are ugly, I want to understand why they’re successful. (And don’t read that in terms of “successful despite bad design.”)
In general, I believe and want to see that design is ultimately the differentiator between successful and unsuccessful things/products/services/experiences. I think we’re starting to see that in typical commerce (e.g. in the technology world, the components and abilities of the typical TV right now aren’t all that different from one another – they’re differentiated by design, that’s all companies have to fight with anymore because the other stuff is sort of the price of admission for being in the market in the first place.)
But the web isn’t there yet. Most websites suck. They’re badly done. Poorly implemented. They don’t work well. They infuriate users by constantly throwing up barriers to getting things done, or finding something. A “website” is a $500,000 site for an international company AND the brochure site for a local grasscutting service, coded in Dreamweaver by your 14-year-old nephew for $200. It’s not just design that differentiates on the web. GOOD differentiates. (And so does usable, useful, connecting, ubiquitous, popular, etc.)
In that, of course I want people to design things well. I’m just submitting that good design isn’t the one thing that will make you successful on the internet, though I think our industry often approaches it as such. (e.g. “If it was just prettier, more people would use it.”)
Couldn’t agree more. Well put.
So there is a discrepancy between how we (as designers/web-savvy people) look at the role of good design as an ingredient for success, and the reality that there are plenty of poorly designed, badly implemented, ugly-ass, successful sites.
I think this happens because our usage of the web and its role in our lives is very different than the vast majority of people. My life, thoughts, career, etc are entirely wrapped up in this network of servers we call the web. I take it in a LOT. I spend time just “being” on the web, whereas most people come to the web needing to accomplish something (reconnect with someone, send an email, research a product, shop for something, etc). As such, all the subtle (and drastic) differences in usability, layout, technology, and design start to become apparent.
It’s a lot like food, isn’t it? We all need to eat. The McDonalds and Denny’s of the world will always be around. Food is utility. If you work as a chef, though, you probably might cringe at the thought of eating at McDonalds. Your palette has been refined in such a way that you can REALLY taste the differences in the quality of food you eat.
That much is obvious I suppose.
So why should a business care about having a great website? Why should social networks care? It depends on how they define success. And by this token, if being successful means high-traffic and increased ROI… then it’s clear that design doesn’t play into this equation as much as we designers think it should. At best, having a beautiful, intuitive website might only serve as a source of pride or prestige for an given institution, company, or person. And in the long run, that’s a good thing I think. It’s not the ONLY thing, but it’s a good thing.
I typed all that when I could have just said this:
Advertising and design serve to amplify the value of useful things.
— originally from Ellen Lupton’s Mechanical Brides.
Found that here: http://ilovetypography.com/2007/10/26/made-with-fontfont/
About The Author
I'm a graphic designer and sometimes writer living in Anderson, South Carolina. I serve as the Design Director for NewSpring Church. I love Jesus, my wife, Levi's Jeans, good Tex-Mex, and 8oz glass bottle Coca-Cola Classic. On good days I love them roughly in that order. Email me.
Social Networking Perception Versus Reality
Thu 10/25/07
One of the things that amazes me about web design culture (if there is such a thing and it is cohesive enough to call it a “culture”) is how out of touch our perception(s) can be versus reality. In truth, we as an industry can have a pretty limited view of the medium we work within.
For example, which social networking sites are growing and attracting visitors right now. I’ve never even heard of IMEEM, I never would have guessed AIM Pages is growing faster than Digg, I can’t believe GeoCities still has more traffic than Flickr, etc.
Add in to the mix that this is just U.S. users and it gets even more bizarre since Google’s Orkut had 24.6 million visitors in September, but only ~500,000 of those were in the U.S. When was the last time you had a conversation about Orkut? Never? Yeah, me too.
I can almost guarantee you that most web designers turn their noses up at these sites because we think they’re not particularly well-designed (at least aesthetically) and yet, that’s where all the people are. The beauty-lover in me desperately wants to believe that MySpace is an anomaly of mass scale and yet, most of the other sites that are growing have just as many flaws and are just as ugly. You know what that means, right? We’re putting a ton of resources into visuals on sites that no one is using.
I don’t know how to create an organic, growing community. The task seems at odds with itself from the starting line. But as an industry, I think we need to start figuring it out more and not relying on the purely visual side of our skillset to get us through.
Thoughts?
All that said, the metrics for TechCrunch’s article are probably a bit silly. It’s only U.S. data, and honestly, a year timeline? On the internet? Things move far too quickly to think that’s an actual representation of reality in the same way it would be for a traditional business. I’d rather see the last 6 months. IMEEM probably shows up on the radar because it’s so new (e.g. it didn’t have much traffic initially.)