20 ms·

Why are some of the ugliest sites on the Web also the most popular?

9 points by rohmanhakim 10y ago

trprog 10y ago
Don't seem that puzzling to me. If a site is very valuable to its users then they probably don't care too much what it looks like. And I suspect that teams working on producing something extremely valuable or useful probably put its appearance pretty far down the to-do list.
itsmisterdavid 10y ago
ITS ALL ABOUT CONTENT
ankurdhama 10y ago
Looks only matter for vary small amount of time after that its all about "does it get the job done".
hlandau 10y ago
My design preferences seem to be diametrically opposed to whatever is the contemporary sensibility, then. I don't like the modern, padded, grey-rather-than-jet-black text style at all. High information density is a feature, not a bug. If I designed a site, it'd probably look something like HN, assuming I styled it at all. A lot of websites now seem to be designed by a "vertical stack of big blocks" model, probably because the need to support mobile resolutions makes any multi-column design (for navigation purposes, etc.) near-unworkable. But despite the idea of "responsive design", and that websites should adapt to the screen, there's been a very noticable degradation in design in this regard from the perspective of someone who always uses a desktop browser. Either the tools available for responsive design (media queries, etc.) are insufficient, or little effort is now expended on offering a superior experience on desktop. So we get the 'stack of blocks' design. Use of fonts which are rather oversized is also common.
jackskell 10y ago
Simple on any screen. Links are obvious. Actions are obvious. Loads quickly on slow connections. Forward/back loads are quick. I don't have time or interest on burning cellular data on bloated websites that take lots of scrolling to view information. Plus, users who were users pre-web understand and appreciate simple design. We don't need buttons to understand where to click.

9 points by rohmanhakim 10y ago

Don't seem that puzzling to me. If a site is very valuable to its users then they probably don't care too much what it looks like. And I suspect that teams working on producing something extremely valuable or useful probably put its appearance pretty far down the to-do list.

itsmisterdavid 10y ago

ITS ALL ABOUT CONTENT

ankurdhama 10y ago

Looks only matter for vary small amount of time after that its all about "does it get the job done".

hlandau 10y ago

My design preferences seem to be diametrically opposed to whatever is the contemporary sensibility, then. I don't like the modern, padded, grey-rather-than-jet-black text style at all. High information density is a feature, not a bug. If I designed a site, it'd probably look something like HN, assuming I styled it at all. A lot of websites now seem to be designed by a "vertical stack of big blocks" model, probably because the need to support mobile resolutions makes any multi-column design (for navigation purposes, etc.) near-unworkable. But despite the idea of "responsive design", and that websites should adapt to the screen, there's been a very noticable degradation in design in this regard from the perspective of someone who always uses a desktop browser. Either the tools available for responsive design (media queries, etc.) are insufficient, or little effort is now expended on offering a superior experience on desktop. So we get the 'stack of blocks' design. Use of fonts which are rather oversized is also common.

jackskell 10y ago

Simple on any screen. Links are obvious. Actions are obvious. Loads quickly on slow connections. Forward/back loads are quick. I don't have time or interest on burning cellular data on bloated websites that take lots of scrolling to view information. Plus, users who were users pre-web understand and appreciate simple design. We don't need buttons to understand where to click.