Good Sites Bad Design

This article tries to explain why some websites with really ugly designs do so well regarding usage. I think it dances around the reality of the situation. These sites are ugly because they weren’t professionally designed. They were implemented to be functional and to get into the marketplace (budget/time/resource limitations). The reason they are successful is because they were either: innovative, viral (word of mouth), or just plain useful.

Design doesn’t make or break a website, the ability to expose usability and functionality of your product in a way the user can grasp with minimal effort is what ultimately is important.

The sites mentioned (Craigslist, MySpace, and Google) all have rather humble beginnings. None were started by the big companies. They were created people with an idea, not a design.

I guess it’s all about how you view things. You can either be vein, or be functional. In my opinion the gifted are the ones who are rather balanced between the two.

3 thoughts on “Good Sites Bad Design

  1. “the ability to expose usability and functionality of your product in a way the user can grasp with minimal effort is what ultimately is important.”

    Is this not part of design?

  2. @Joshua Porter: depends on your definition of design… Some say MySpace, CraigsList, etc. are ugly/bad design… some say they are ugly, but brilliantly designed.

    I guess the question is: is design 100% aesthetic?

  3. Robert. This is a FANTASTIC distinction. Too often designers let their ego get in the way, and think that design = graphic design, and so they miss the point entirely. Thanks so much for sharing your view:

    The ability to expose usability and functionality of your product in a way the user can grasp with minimal effort is what ultimately is important.

    -ross

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *