3 ms·

I get the type of customers that need this sort of site, it's artsy, unique and all, but to be honest this could be the poster child for "UX don'ts"

rchaud 8y ago
True,but I work in a UX role and for a moderate-to-large website, "good UX" means a basic responsive design with a logical information architecture and navigation that optimizes conversion (e.g. product purchases). Good UX is business-driven and businesses are often boring. I'm not a huge fan of this particular design but I do appreciate the effort they put into showcasing GSAP's capabilities. The web could use more interactivity and motion. The death of Flash and rise of mobile-first design seems to have led to websites where the only thing moving is the text/image content that's displaced once the ads on the page finish loading.
- kjullien 8y ago
  I somewhat agree and disagree with your view of UX, but that would mainly be a personal thing. The way I see it for something to be have a nice user experience, it cannot be "boring" or all that bland as you put it, because if your target has lost interest after spending 10 seconds on your page because it feels like Wikipedia then I would call it bad UX honestly. To illustrate if I had an article to present I could simply make a layout like so : Title Article, bold words for emphasis so literally an h1 and some paragraphs and for the sake of this example let's say that this pattern is indeed a good UX. Now it works, our potential customer gets the content we want him to read, all good, but it is boring. Now if you were to let's say do this kind of a layout : Title with cover image background and a readable contrast Paragraph 1 gets displayed centered vertically and horizontally with a lot of space between lines and a large font to make for an painless read, instead of using bold for emphasis maybe use bold and an accent color Paragraph 2 has its first couple sentences barely noticeable at the bottom of your screen so that the user knows to scroll Paragraph 3 comes in with a fade-in+transition from -10% left to 0% left etc... It might feel like we are entering more of a UI world but the way I see it if I can't easily understand something no matter how well it is presented then it's bad UX. I have dyslexia so I cannot read more than 2-3 paragraphs before losing track or interest, probably read 2 books in my life from cover to cover, so this has always made me think about content in a way that would make it accessible to any individual no matter their prior knowledge on the subject, their capacities or any other assumption you might not even realize you are making. If a 5 year old can understand it in seconds then it has a good UX for me, think of Reddit's ELI5. Again, this is only my view and I'm not saying there is a right and wrong way to do things, because there is none either way.

rchaud 8y ago

True,but I work in a UX role and for a moderate-to-large website, "good UX" means a basic responsive design with a logical information architecture and navigation that optimizes conversion (e.g. product purchases). Good UX is business-driven and businesses are often boring. I'm not a huge fan of this particular design but I do appreciate the effort they put into showcasing GSAP's capabilities. The web could use more interactivity and motion. The death of Flash and rise of mobile-first design seems to have led to websites where the only thing moving is the text/image content that's displaced once the ads on the page finish loading.

kjullien 8y ago
I somewhat agree and disagree with your view of UX, but that would mainly be a personal thing. The way I see it for something to be have a nice user experience, it cannot be "boring" or all that bland as you put it, because if your target has lost interest after spending 10 seconds on your page because it feels like Wikipedia then I would call it bad UX honestly. To illustrate if I had an article to present I could simply make a layout like so : Title Article, bold words for emphasis so literally an h1 and some paragraphs and for the sake of this example let's say that this pattern is indeed a good UX. Now it works, our potential customer gets the content we want him to read, all good, but it is boring. Now if you were to let's say do this kind of a layout : Title with cover image background and a readable contrast Paragraph 1 gets displayed centered vertically and horizontally with a lot of space between lines and a large font to make for an painless read, instead of using bold for emphasis maybe use bold and an accent color Paragraph 2 has its first couple sentences barely noticeable at the bottom of your screen so that the user knows to scroll Paragraph 3 comes in with a fade-in+transition from -10% left to 0% left etc... It might feel like we are entering more of a UI world but the way I see it if I can't easily understand something no matter how well it is presented then it's bad UX. I have dyslexia so I cannot read more than 2-3 paragraphs before losing track or interest, probably read 2 books in my life from cover to cover, so this has always made me think about content in a way that would make it accessible to any individual no matter their prior knowledge on the subject, their capacities or any other assumption you might not even realize you are making. If a 5 year old can understand it in seconds then it has a good UX for me, think of Reddit's ELI5. Again, this is only my view and I'm not saying there is a right and wrong way to do things, because there is none either way.