3 ms·
I’m not saying this page can’t be improved. I am saying, however, that people pattern match when viewing websites, and the open source aesthetic is a very cons
by gkoberger 6y ago
I’m not saying this page can’t be improved. I am saying, however, that people pattern match when viewing websites, and the open source aesthetic is a very consistent aesthetic. And the impression the design projects is more important than it being aesthetically pleasing.
Think about Lowes vs West Elm. Both sell things for homeowners. But you can tell from their aesthetics what to expect. Lowes could copy the aesthetic of an Apple store, but it would feel very “off”.
- ulisesrmzroche 6y agoNo, I’m pretty sure most people don’t automatically distrust a page because it looks nice. You’re seriously overreaching There’s tons of open source projects with nice looking sites. It’s one of those HN blind spots You didn’t survey anyone either did you?
- gkoberger 6y agoNobody said “distrust”. Have you seen emacs? It ain’t pretty. But it’s effective and works for a certain type of person. This aesthetic fits the emacs aesthetic. If this site was too polished and pretty, people would expect a polished and pretty product. It indicates it won’t be easy to use this product, and it works to attract the correct user. If it was beautiful, people would have different expectations for the tool. This design indicates it’ll require work to set up and understand. In the same way this site would never work for a nice macOS app, a Panic site wouldn’t work for this tool.