The Best Websites Are Useful And Ugly Options

[bwelford]

The best websites are useful and ugly.

Now here's an article by Gerry McGovern you can really get your teeth into.

[Adrian]

While I agree that it's more important to be useful, than it is to look good, I can't go along with the comment that "the more beautiful a site is, the less functional it is".

Creating looks and functionality is certainly a challenge, but they are hardly mutally exclusive on the web.

[ukdaz]

I actually have a client who swears by having an ugly site helps them sell more - as it gives the appearance the products they sell online are extremely cheap. Seems to work as he's making lots of sales.

He offered me a link from his site to mine but I have to admit I declined.

Daz

This post has been edited by ukdaz: Jul 31 2007, 07:07 AM

[A.N.Onym]

I have to second Adrian.

There can be:
beautiful, but not converting
beautiful and converting
not beautiful and converting
not beautiful and not converting

It all depends on the person, who handles the site - and the customers, first hand.

P.S. I am not sure why this article arouses a discussion. I believe Kim and everyone else practicing usability have said that function should come first before form. Is Mike Grehan easier to pick on?

This post has been edited by A.N.Onym: Jul 31 2007, 08:22 AM

[cre8pc]

I believe Kim and everyone else practicing usability have said that function should come first before form.

This is because I've tested several hundred web sites and know first hand that many pretty ones don't work once I get in there.

There are a few sites I've had the pleasure of reviewing where it's obvious everyone worked together - the content people, programmers, designers and final testers. The clues are in the tiny details, which most sites miss because the people who built them are not the ones intended to use them.

I never liked the term "ugly" site. Everyone has different tastes and tolerance levels. Many don't come to be entertained. They have a mission and want to get it done quickly and easily. This is why famous sites do well. First of all, we trust them. We trust Amazon and we trust Craiglist. We feel we know them. This is also part of usability. Computer/Human behavior is tons of fun, isn't it?

[Respree]

I think we're saying it wrong.

Why don't just say that a usable website doesn't necessarily have to be pretty.

[joedolson]

The best websites are useful. Period.

Like Garrick said, they don't have to be pretty - pretty may or may not help. But that's a side issue - making sure you have an ugly website is certainly not going to automatically help it out!

[tam]

I think ugliness and usefulness often do go hand in hand but not because the ugliness works better. There are plenty of ugly sites that don't work too.

The 1990's frontpage site that's still running the same table layout and dodgy patterned back ground might be the ugliest thing ever, but it's often run by a small company with specialist products and great customer service.

Plus, to us web-savvy users it might look like a personal page but the average user just doesn't see it the same way.

Getting the balance between design and usability/content right is difficult - you can do it and have beautiful usable sites. The sites that tip towards the usable might be more ugly but they work. As long as the ugliness isn't inhibiting the users access to content it's not as bigger issue as other parts of making a site work.

Tam

[AbleReach]

Why don't just say that a usable website doesn't necessarily have to be pretty.

Beauty has its advantages. Unfortunately, on the web, "beauty is only skin deep" often means the site doesn't function - not even good enough for arm candy.

This post has been edited by AbleReach: Jul 31 2007, 12:22 PM

[rynert]

I was thinking of revamping weddingchaos.co.uk, thought it was looking a bit 'tired' - so asked my forum members to be honest about it, they all said it was great and no need for me to change it.

It certainly is not slick, but I guess it works

[sebastienbillard]

Usability comes first. Though, research has shown that aesthetics increased the perceived usability of interfaces. Aesthetics won't save an unusable interface, but for 2 equally usable interface, the prettiest will be felt as more usable.

[3rdeye5]

I feel that all clarity is beautiful.
Usability is a kind of clarity, and is thus beautiful in itself.

Not all beauty supports clarity, though. Something similar goes for ugliness, but it's usually much worse.


Ewald

[cline]

No, usability does not come first. It's just one of several factors in an economically successful website. Ugly is actually an important dimension.

I have a client that recently engaged in a major site redesign. The existing site was ugly, and had some usability problems. The new site was not only beautiful, it was by everyone's standards more usable (n.b., usability was not tested).

Upon seeing the first comps for the redesign I warned the client that the new design would likely hurt sales. The project proceeded.

When it was done I argued that we should a/b test it. The results of the test were clear: The new site did not sell as well as the old site did.

On what basis would I predict that a site that I thought had better usability would not sell as well?

Back in the early 90s I was a marketing manager at a direct marketing firm. Business had plateaued. New management hired a bunch of marketing people from the packaged goods industry (not direct marketing people) to try to revive growth. These folks looked at our mailers and immediately said, “there’s the problem.” The mailers looked ugly and had lots of copy. They hired outside designers and copywriters to make over the package for our highest volume mailer. They ran focus groups showing participants the new and old mailers. The focus groups were quite clear in their opinions: They would buy from the new mailer but not the old one. The new marketers were really pleased, and decided to switch to the new mailer. The old direct marketing hands argued that this was not the proper way to do things. Everything should be tested, and that the new mailer should be a small test cell in the overall mailing, with most people getting the control mailer. The old hands were overruled, but as a sop to them, the new guys allowed the old mailer to be a small test cell.

The new mailer was a disaster. The small bunch of old mailers performed as usual.

Later someone checked all the names of the focus group members. Some of the groups were made up of customers. They found one person who had bought from the old mailer, and on the videos of the focus groups this customer had proclaimed that he’d never buy insurance from the old mailer he was being shown!

For certain offers and markets, ugly is a virtue. Ugly means something to prospective buyers. It means: CHEAP. If your USP depends on cheap, ugly is likely to work better than beautiful, and the effect can be powerful enough to overwhelm moderate usability differences.

[cre8pc]

Cline! As soon as I saw your name, I raced over. It's good to "see" you again

I can't help but think the definition of usability is so broad that it's impossible to agree or disagree because we're not all talking about the same things.

You were right on to demand testing. I'd be interested to know what failed. My guess is that tasks malfunctioned, once visitors got past the newly polished UI.

"Ugly" sites perform well when existing customers or readers have had time to learn how to use them and we all know when you change a site with a redesign, all hell breaks loose. People hate to re-learn where things are. Sales drop. Loyalty is broken. Humans are habitual creatures. They get into comfort zones.

Attractive sites can be absolute usability nightmares. I've yet to be sent one to test that didn't have problems somewhere. In fact, some of the nifty things they put on those sites aren't accessible and therefore, they've just chopped off the ability of millions of people to use it.

"Ugly" drives many artistic people crazy because they view it as a limitation. I understand this. Plain and simple works best for the greatest denominator and that includes search engines.

Designers must truly understand who will use the site. Some TV show sites drive me nuts because of the visuals and times to download all the interactive toys. They neglect the "I just want to know what time the show starts" visitor. This is a usability issue but not everyone gets that. They're still arguing about font sizes and colored backgrounds

[cline]

Thanks for the "good to see you." I'm so swamped with additional responsibilities supporting the business my wife started (I'm chief business officer of it, in addition to running my own firm) that I mostly only get to some of the forum threads that are mentioned in some of the newsletters.

In the case of the a/b test, it was entirely focused on new customer acquisition. Of course, some existing customers could have been re-acquired, but it would be hard to argue that this would be significant enough to move the numbers.

Yes, the definition of usability is slippery, but there was team consensus, even from the dissenter to the overall direction of the project (i.e., me).

Have you all looked at http://www.ryanair.com/? Look at the listing in Google:

Ryanair.com - The lowest fares guaranteed - cheap flights, fly cheaperRyanair.com Great Britain - The Low Fares Airline, cheap flights from Europe, UK and Ireland. Cheapest flight tickets, discount airline tickets.

Note the positioning. Ugly + cheap.

[Halfdeck]

"The best websites are useful and ugly"

Compelling title that falls flat on its face.

If I had a choice between in a functional cramped $300/mo room in a NYC west side and a gorgeous mansion on Beverly Hills I guess Gerry is telling me I would choose the $300/mo room ... why?

If I had a choice between buying an ugly unfunctional commodore 64 and a $2,200 sony vio laptop I'm more likely to buy the commodore 64 that doesn't even let me connect to the net and forces me to use tape drives?

Second, higher conversion ratio isn't the end all be all. Phillip Morris loses money by labeling their cigarette packs with warnings and Pepsi loses money by labeling their bottled water telling people its just tap water. So what?

If you're a professional webmaster, one of your goals should be to build a website that's as easy to use and easy on the eyes. If you had a choice between higher conversions and higher visitors satisfaction, you'd choose higher conversions?

Too many webmasters are slaves to conversions and revenue -- that's why many of their sites fail - because they refuse to offer a better product unless that improvement is followed by increase in revenue.

For example, a client of mine refuses to stop bolding every single keyword in paragraphs. Why? First, his competitors are doing it and they rank high. Second, he's afraid of losing ranking if he removes the bold.

Usability and design first, conversions second... Just like usability and design come before SEO. Become a slave to rankings and conversions and the quality of your site is down the tubes.

[AbleReach]

For example, a client of mine refuses to stop bolding every single keyword in paragraphs. Why? First, his competitors are doing it and they rank high. Second, he's afraid of losing ranking if he removes the bold.

Site like that make my head hurt.

Maybe, in a long-run chain reaction way, SEs are subtly improving usability by moving away from backrub algos. One can always hope!

[bookworm-seo]

I've learnt a lot from this thread. I'd heard the argument before, but I think this contributes something important. It specifies a context for when you want "ugly and functional" - when you're offering cheap products. If Ryanair, to use Cline's example, were trying to attract large corporate clients ... it might not be so functional, IMHO, the cheap colours making corporate agents reluctant to deal with the company.

Anyways, nothing but kind words to Cre8pc's forums for another great thread. (I've been reading a bit before becoming a member and posting...)

[AbleReach]

Welcome to Cre8asite, bookworm.

[Jenn]

a dubious question.

for advertising purposes, it's ok to have an ugly website.
but what for software companies' websites?
are you going to buy any software which is not presented nicely on the website? i mean if the site cannot present it nicely, what sort of software is it? customers lose interest quickly and no hits!

compare yourself:

flashmaps.com

usflashmaps.com