Aaron Gerdes: Ugly Design Wins?

Ugly Design Wins?

aarongerdes@gmail.com (Aaron Gerdes) — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:20:00 -0800

Robert Scoble posted some thoughts on what he calls “anti-marketing design.” Scoble contends that ugly designs make better websites: more sticky, better brands, more fun, and more revenue. He cites Google, Craig’s List, and MySpace as ugly successes.

I disagree with Scoble that ugliness drives the success of these sites (which is an idea he reinforces more in the comments).

Two factors attribute heavily to the success of these sites. This clearer if you divide the sites into two categories: functional and community.

The Functional

The functional sites are Google/Gmail and Flickr (but Flickr is also a community!, you say. I know, but its a task-oriented community). These sites improve on a function. Searching. Emailing. Organizing and sharing photos.

It’s true that these sites have low ornamentation. Is that absence of ornamentation due to a lack of design, or evidence of it?

The design, as I see it, is in the simplicity and ease/speed they let me get things done.

The Community

The community sites are MySpace and Craig’s List.

Criag’s List is clean and easy (once you get past the over-stuffed homepage).

MySpace is “ornamented” with ads, and I think it only overcomes this through communal opportunities for vanity (in web lingo, we call that stickiness).

No, really. What holds these sites together isn’t necessarily their usability. And that’s okay, it’s an important factor but they’re not failing miserably. These two sites are successful because they build communities. You can overcome lots with that (see Metcalfe’s Law).

To argue that these sites are just created for the love of whatever is pushing it. Their goal is stakeholder value, and that’s okay.

To say that these sites succeed just because we perceive them as being “authentic” (in the sense that their built by only one person), and that appeals to us because nobody is real with us in our committee-design driven world, is pushing it. That’s not the only, or even primary reason we use these sites. It’s appreciated, but in the postmodern state, we don’t expect that.

To say they succeed because they make something a little faster, simpler, and easier, or because they connect us to people – that makes more sense.

And in doing so, they’ve acheived good design.

"Ugly Design Wins?" by Aaron Gerdes

Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:32:37 -0800

Thanks for the kind words, Toby. :)

I think I go by my gut more often than not. My gut has learned a bit over the years (no pun intended, as recently my gut has learned plenty!).

Humor aside, one’s gut really does know a lot! Most of design theory is working out the visual harmonies that most people “know when they see”.

The cool part is that its built in (part biology, part culture). Give most people enough time and they can eyeball out something that meets some basic design rules, without much background.

It’s a lot like music. All but the tonedeaf can tell a good song when they hear it. True, it takes a pro to balace dischord and harmony, use a key-change to communicate an opening up, and to know the “instrument”. But the process of appealing to people’s instinctive, non-word-based language?

I need to go sketch some ideas!

"Ugly Design Wins?" by Toby Getsch

Sun, 26 Mar 2006 11:01:40 -0800

Aaron

Once again, well said. Your further explanation of your position and why you want to speak to the “ugly” comments make your professional career choice and its expertise come to the forefront.

I think I go by my gut more often than not. My gut has learned a bit over the years (no pun intended, as recently my gut has learned plenty!). You are conscious and thoughtful towards your design, describing and marketing.

That’s good.

Toby Getsch

http://www.tweblog.com

"Ugly Design Wins?" by Aaron Gerdes

Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:26:07 -0800

Indeed, there’s some redesigning going on here (still lots to do, I’m working from a template from my blog engine, so changes are incremental)!

I do think Scoble and I are after something different, on a few levels. Scoble’s clear he feels these sites succeed because they’re ugly. That “we” as web consumers feel that makes something authentic.

I’ll contend they’re neither ugly/antimarketing nor successful for their looks – the overlap between their looks and success is usability and utilitarianism.

A few of the companies he sites make this work because it’s their genuine voice. This spartan look is congruent with their purpose (Google, Flickr, Basecamp).

Scoble’s pitching this as a fad. I’ve seen it before. Consumers are sick of slick, we want authentic. Then, “we” as web consumers catch on that the people trying to look authentic aren’t, so its time to be slick again—ad infinitum.

I have two hopes. One, that companies will speak with a voice that’s theirs. Not TRYING to be genuine, but really being genuine. Just relaxed. For Apple, that’s hihg-end aesthetics and their excellent “pitch” copy. For Flickr, that’s sparseness and humor. To this end, some companies need a professional to help distill their real voice (that sounds counter-intuitive). More on that in a future post.

The second hope is this goes beyond me just nitpicking language. I think it’s more important than that. A, because I’ve got a design background and I think clarifying the greater role of design in helping one select the right voice is important. B, because to have an idea, you need language first, and the more we bump around in the dark for design terminology, the better ideas we’ll be having.

More websites are really applications. We need better language for the difference between a good interface and great packaging.

"Ugly Design Wins?" by Toby Getsch

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:39:23 -0800

Your post here is well said. However, I think the point of what Scoble was trying to get at is very similar to your point. I really don’t think that you disagree. Rather, I think you agree and are describing it from a different perspective.

You redesigned the look of your site. Now it looks more like Flickr. I change the look of my site, whenever my mood or perfectionism gets the better (or worst) of me.

I also posted about Scoble’s “Anti-Marketing” post (http://tweblog.livejournal.com/62126.html) but my view was that it’s just a simplification that makes sites “more attractive.” Yes, good design can take many forms. But there are many perspectives on what good/ugly or anti-marketing may be. I think good design goes into any one of those things.

Community and Function = That’s the focus of what I see you liking in making a site “sticky” and more usable. I still hear almost everyone saying, “Make my site look simple like Google.”

Best regards, ~Toby

http://www.tweblog.com

"Ugly Design Wins?" by Aaron Gerdes

Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:41:39 -0800

Well put! There’s absolutely lots more.

Another way to think of it, a large part of design is deciding what not to include. In that way, good design is beyond the eye as well.

"Ugly Design Wins?" by Randy Gerdes

Thu, 23 Mar 2006 07:05:09 -0800

So there’s more to good design than meets the eye…