5 ms·

The fact that there exist weak and unprofessional sites representing successful companies is not a counterargument against my evaluation of Exec's design. I nev

The fact that there exist weak and unprofessional sites representing successful companies is not a counterargument against my evaluation of Exec's design. I never claimed that Exec was doomed to fail, or even that they imperatively need a redesign. I didn't make any kind of point about how much impact visual design has on a business's success. My point was about the relationship between two designs: the original Exec design and the "facelift." The facelift is much more professional, and looks much less thrown-together. To add some context, too, I'm not "coming out of the woodwork" to criticize the company. I was responding to what seemed like a lot of misplaced negativity about the facelift. I think it's definitely possible for a company to do very well without a well-designed website. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it?

tptacek 15y ago
If you had said their design was "weak", I wouldn't have a strong argument. You said their design was "unprofessional". Strong disagree, and disagreement worth having: people here are too hung up on unreasonable standards of "professionalism". "Professional" is a best practices standard. It very much depends on context. Angie's List is a giant site in Exec's space. Exec's launch website is to my eyes totally professional, cleaner and better written than Angie's List. What, exactly, do you think is more professional about the redesign?
- ForrestN 15y ago
  "Professional" in the context of visual design is about the aesthetics of business (as opposed to the aesthetics of, say, amateurs). I didn't mean professional in the sense of "money-earning," as you would use the term applied to participants in a certain field. Exec's launch website is unprofessional because it is unpolished, visually unresolved, and appears to have taken little time to create. I don't want to break down into a detailed argument over specifics, but the biggest problems have to do with spacing, type size, the crappy icons, and the hyper-generic elements like the buttons, background tiles and color palette. Also, the logo (which isn't very distinctive in and of itself) isn't even used throughout. The redesign is very carefully proportioned and arranged. It uses somewhat less generic colors and buttons and so forth, and some simple visual ideas are repeated throughout to create a sense of continuity and harmony. Each section flows well from on area to the next. Again, I think you might be projecting a little bit. Who's "hung up" on "unreasonable standards" of professionalism? The post is about a person redesigning Exec's landing page. The redesign is more professional, looks more polished and refined and careful, than the original. I don't think that's a huge deal, and I don't think that makes Exec a huge failure or something. I'm not insisting that they raise their design to any standard. EDIT: FYI, I'm not really much of a web designer myself. Kyro can probably define the problems with the existing site in much more detail than I could.
  - asr 15y ago
    This debate is very interesting, and you've both made some great points. But I lost you entirely with this post: I didn't mean professional in the sense of "money-earning," as you would use the term applied to participants in a certain field. That's exactly what professional means. A professional web designer is someone who gets paid by others to design websites. Sometimes, artistic license is part of what customers want (see: professional chefs, painters, etc.). But web businesses like Exec generally want to earn money. So any site that is optimized for profit qualifies as professional, regardless of how much you like their design. Of course, there are caveats. Maybe some designs, while generating more conversions, would attract more short-term, price-conscious customers, instead of the upscale clientele that are ultimately more important to Exec's long-term profits. And maybe, for this service, it's important to be seen as "stylish" to generate good word of mouth. But, ultimately, whatever design is best for Exec is the most "professional."
  - ForrestN 15y ago
    @asr: we're getting kind of into the weeds, but you're talking about the difference between a professional design and a professional designer. To maybe put it more easily, and to bridge the gap between the two usages: the facelift looks like it was made by a professional designer and is thus a professional design. The existing site looks amateur because it appears as if the person who designed it would be unable to charge for their design services. To argue the opposite would require some kind of weird personification of the design, as in, "this design is a wage-earning participant in its field," which just doesn't comport with how people use "professional" when they apply it to products and especially to designs.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      This right here is the mentality that bothers me. I promise you: the industry of professional designers is full of people who believe that only professional designers can create sites that will pass muster with buyers in the real world. The reality is simpler, cheaper, and fairer: there is indeed a minimum standard that company websites need to achieve to look like a "real company", but it is many many thousands of dollars cheaper than a professional design project. You can buy it for tens of dollars on Themeforest. Your customers, unless you sell primarily to designers†, will never notice or care. Most professional design projects by pre-revenue companies are vanity exercises. A lot of professional design projects post-revenue are too. It is completely f'd up to say that a company looks unprofessional because its website isn't the product of a professional design project. Professional designers are not the gatekeepers of professional startup site launches. They just aren't. People need to stop acting like they are, because it's keeping them from getting to market. † Do not do this.

tptacek 15y ago

If you had said their design was "weak", I wouldn't have a strong argument. You said their design was "unprofessional". Strong disagree, and disagreement worth having: people here are too hung up on unreasonable standards of "professionalism". "Professional" is a best practices standard. It very much depends on context. Angie's List is a giant site in Exec's space. Exec's launch website is to my eyes totally professional, cleaner and better written than Angie's List. What, exactly, do you think is more professional about the redesign?

ForrestN 15y ago
"Professional" in the context of visual design is about the aesthetics of business (as opposed to the aesthetics of, say, amateurs). I didn't mean professional in the sense of "money-earning," as you would use the term applied to participants in a certain field. Exec's launch website is unprofessional because it is unpolished, visually unresolved, and appears to have taken little time to create. I don't want to break down into a detailed argument over specifics, but the biggest problems have to do with spacing, type size, the crappy icons, and the hyper-generic elements like the buttons, background tiles and color palette. Also, the logo (which isn't very distinctive in and of itself) isn't even used throughout. The redesign is very carefully proportioned and arranged. It uses somewhat less generic colors and buttons and so forth, and some simple visual ideas are repeated throughout to create a sense of continuity and harmony. Each section flows well from on area to the next. Again, I think you might be projecting a little bit. Who's "hung up" on "unreasonable standards" of professionalism? The post is about a person redesigning Exec's landing page. The redesign is more professional, looks more polished and refined and careful, than the original. I don't think that's a huge deal, and I don't think that makes Exec a huge failure or something. I'm not insisting that they raise their design to any standard. EDIT: FYI, I'm not really much of a web designer myself. Kyro can probably define the problems with the existing site in much more detail than I could.
- asr 15y ago
  This debate is very interesting, and you've both made some great points. But I lost you entirely with this post: I didn't mean professional in the sense of "money-earning," as you would use the term applied to participants in a certain field. That's exactly what professional means. A professional web designer is someone who gets paid by others to design websites. Sometimes, artistic license is part of what customers want (see: professional chefs, painters, etc.). But web businesses like Exec generally want to earn money. So any site that is optimized for profit qualifies as professional, regardless of how much you like their design. Of course, there are caveats. Maybe some designs, while generating more conversions, would attract more short-term, price-conscious customers, instead of the upscale clientele that are ultimately more important to Exec's long-term profits. And maybe, for this service, it's important to be seen as "stylish" to generate good word of mouth. But, ultimately, whatever design is best for Exec is the most "professional."
- ForrestN 15y ago
  @asr: we're getting kind of into the weeds, but you're talking about the difference between a professional design and a professional designer. To maybe put it more easily, and to bridge the gap between the two usages: the facelift looks like it was made by a professional designer and is thus a professional design. The existing site looks amateur because it appears as if the person who designed it would be unable to charge for their design services. To argue the opposite would require some kind of weird personification of the design, as in, "this design is a wage-earning participant in its field," which just doesn't comport with how people use "professional" when they apply it to products and especially to designs.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    This right here is the mentality that bothers me. I promise you: the industry of professional designers is full of people who believe that only professional designers can create sites that will pass muster with buyers in the real world. The reality is simpler, cheaper, and fairer: there is indeed a minimum standard that company websites need to achieve to look like a "real company", but it is many many thousands of dollars cheaper than a professional design project. You can buy it for tens of dollars on Themeforest. Your customers, unless you sell primarily to designers†, will never notice or care. Most professional design projects by pre-revenue companies are vanity exercises. A lot of professional design projects post-revenue are too. It is completely f'd up to say that a company looks unprofessional because its website isn't the product of a professional design project. Professional designers are not the gatekeepers of professional startup site launches. They just aren't. People need to stop acting like they are, because it's keeping them from getting to market. † Do not do this.