6 ms·

> "way it looks, it’s about the way it works" Dangerous to separate these. Poorly looking sites have poor experiences. Of course, aesthetics are subjective, so

> "way it looks, it’s about the way it works" Dangerous to separate these. Poorly looking sites have poor experiences. Of course, aesthetics are subjective, so I'm speaking generally here. My philosophy for design is to always, without exception, strive for a good looking and functioning site. You can't have a site that works well that looks like shit. Conversely you can often find sites that look great but are absolutely unusable.

gdubs 6y ago
Our points are not at odds. Something 'brutalist' might be very fitting in certain contexts. In most scenarios, creating something that's 'easy on the eyes' is a very important constraint of the design. My main point is that beauty in design emerges from a graceful balancing act between all of the conflicting constraints on a project. It rarely emerges by enforcing a facade on top of something. The best Visual Designers have superb pattern-recognition skills for applying principles they've become familiar with in their education and professional work. They can quickly recognize a certain type of problem, and call on their depth of experience to apply a solution. But even the best can slip into habit of using well-worn tricks in situations where perhaps a different approach would be more fitting.
CharlesW 6y ago
> Poorly looking sites have poor experiences. […] You can't have a site that works well that looks like shit. There are many sites that work well even though they look like shit. Craigslist is a good example.
- ryanSrich 6y ago
  What makes craigslist look like shit? It's boring sure, but it doesn't look like shit. Many designer portfolios I see with hideous colors and abstract out of proportion illustrations are much worse looking than craigslist.
  - CharlesW 6y ago
    > What makes craigslist look like shit? You said "poorly looking sites" can't work well. But Craigslist works fine, even though it's visual design is as homely as anything you'll find. The point is that "visual design" is not "design". If you don't like my example, surely you can think of others.

gdubs 6y ago

Our points are not at odds. Something 'brutalist' might be very fitting in certain contexts. In most scenarios, creating something that's 'easy on the eyes' is a very important constraint of the design. My main point is that beauty in design emerges from a graceful balancing act between all of the conflicting constraints on a project. It rarely emerges by enforcing a facade on top of something. The best Visual Designers have superb pattern-recognition skills for applying principles they've become familiar with in their education and professional work. They can quickly recognize a certain type of problem, and call on their depth of experience to apply a solution. But even the best can slip into habit of using well-worn tricks in situations where perhaps a different approach would be more fitting.

CharlesW 6y ago

> Poorly looking sites have poor experiences. […] You can't have a site that works well that looks like shit. There are many sites that work well even though they look like shit. Craigslist is a good example.

ryanSrich 6y ago
What makes craigslist look like shit? It's boring sure, but it doesn't look like shit. Many designer portfolios I see with hideous colors and abstract out of proportion illustrations are much worse looking than craigslist.
- CharlesW 6y ago
  > What makes craigslist look like shit? You said "poorly looking sites" can't work well. But Craigslist works fine, even though it's visual design is as homely as anything you'll find. The point is that "visual design" is not "design". If you don't like my example, surely you can think of others.