6 ms·

Let me be blunt: this is a confused mess.

MJR 14y ago
I think the main problem is that Nathan incorporated the ConvertKit landing page versions INTO the article. Because the width is the same and the design of the blog and product page are somewhat similar, it's difficult to see while scanning, where the article stops and the example begins. Nathan, you might be better off taking the landing pages out of the main article(lightboxes, new windows, something) to differentiate the article content from the subject of the article.
- kaoD 14y ago
  That's exactly what happened to me and I left instantly. How ironic is that?
bpatrianakos 14y ago
Care to elaborate? I think that's more of a judgement call than any sort of fact. I have to assume what you're talking about (which makes me wonder why this is the top comment) is the screenshots within the post. That could go either way. For a second I was engrossed by them and almost thought I was looking at the actual page but it's not so bad that it warrants being called a confused mess. The images were necessary to get the point across and things were separated enough so you knew what you were looking at. Nathan has a unique design style that both his blog and the ConvertKit landing page share elements of which is why I can see people getting a little confused but in the end, it's just a blog post, dude. And it's well designed on top of that. Not everything on the internet is perfectly suited to your tastes, lay off.
- mnicole 14y ago
  > things were separated enough so you knew what you were looking at Until I noticed the low-res quality of the screenshot I didn't know what it was. Lossy images in 2013; great first impression. > Nathan has a unique design style I'll keep my opinions on that to myself, but when someone writes two books on design and hawks them on HN, people tend to be more critical of your work. I think it says something about someone's expertise when at least two of the HN posts on his products had people confused about design choices and what they were supposed to do on the page. > And it's well designed on top of that. Not everything on the internet is perfectly suited to your tastes, lay off. Design isn't someone's aesthetic or someone else's taste, it's the ability to communicate. This page is confusing a lot of people, so by definition, it is not well-designed. HN also advocates raising one's prices to imply value, and I think that's why this and other posts have had people questioning the price points for the content. Additionally, I don't think "Good question. Not sure." is good copy for when I can expect a product I've paid for.
  - ahoyhere 14y ago
    > Design isn't someone's aesthetic or someone else's taste, it's the ability to communicate. This page is confusing a lot of people, so by definition, it is not well-designed. I don't really have a dog in this race but I am a designer and I am a writer, and hey, deconstructing sentences is fun. Starting at the top: > Design isn't someone's aesthetic or someone else's taste, it's the ability to communicate. This is not an accepted definition. In fact, it's a huge bone of contention. Exhibit A: the yearly surge of near-infinite "What Is Design!?" "Design Is…" articles. But let's pretend it is a canonical definition and then talk about what that would mean: > it's the ability to communicate. How do people communicate? They can only communicate if they hold things in common. Example: a language. What else? Belief systems. Culture. Background. Are aesthetics personal? Can different people hold different aesthetics? Can a mismatch between their aesthetics, like a mismatch in language or belief, cause a communication rift? Yes, yes it can. Ergo… > Design isn't someone's aesthetic or someone else's taste, … is wrong. If you don't think it's not, you've never tried to design something modern and sleek for lawyers… or tried to persuade somebody who loves floral wallpaper to side with Adolf Loos. "Things that look better, work better," research has shown… but did they test it on people outside the culture that created the object tested? What is "better," exactly? This is why knowing your audience's taste (beliefs about aesthetic) is critical to communicating effectively and, ergo, why aesthetics are a huge part of design. > This page is confusing a lot of people, so by definition, it is not well-designed. Let's take the two assumptions here: 1. This page confuses a lot of people 2. That means it's not well-designed Even if you accept 1 as true, that does not lead to 2 as neatly as you suppose it does. What if it confuses people who are not his audience in the first place? What if it confuses people who aren't really interested in conversion rates, but simply interested because Nathan Barry is becoming an HN darling? Casual surfers, you might call them. If casual surfers are the only ones confused, then does that mean the page is not well-designed? What if what you consider "awkwardness" in the design actually attracts other people who are in the author's target audience, while repelling people who are the internet equivalent of windowshoppers? Is that not the definition of well-designed? Finally, I think what you meant to say is "This page confuses a handful of people who are commenting on HN" which is not the same as "a lot of people."
    - 14y ago
- calinet6 14y ago
  The top comment on the post now contains some constructive comments with which I fully agree. Apologies for not having the time to elaborate.

MJR 14y ago

I think the main problem is that Nathan incorporated the ConvertKit landing page versions INTO the article. Because the width is the same and the design of the blog and product page are somewhat similar, it's difficult to see while scanning, where the article stops and the example begins. Nathan, you might be better off taking the landing pages out of the main article(lightboxes, new windows, something) to differentiate the article content from the subject of the article.

kaoD 14y ago
That's exactly what happened to me and I left instantly. How ironic is that?

bpatrianakos 14y ago

Care to elaborate? I think that's more of a judgement call than any sort of fact. I have to assume what you're talking about (which makes me wonder why this is the top comment) is the screenshots within the post. That could go either way. For a second I was engrossed by them and almost thought I was looking at the actual page but it's not so bad that it warrants being called a confused mess. The images were necessary to get the point across and things were separated enough so you knew what you were looking at. Nathan has a unique design style that both his blog and the ConvertKit landing page share elements of which is why I can see people getting a little confused but in the end, it's just a blog post, dude. And it's well designed on top of that. Not everything on the internet is perfectly suited to your tastes, lay off.

mnicole 14y ago
> things were separated enough so you knew what you were looking at Until I noticed the low-res quality of the screenshot I didn't know what it was. Lossy images in 2013; great first impression. > Nathan has a unique design style I'll keep my opinions on that to myself, but when someone writes two books on design and hawks them on HN, people tend to be more critical of your work. I think it says something about someone's expertise when at least two of the HN posts on his products had people confused about design choices and what they were supposed to do on the page. > And it's well designed on top of that. Not everything on the internet is perfectly suited to your tastes, lay off. Design isn't someone's aesthetic or someone else's taste, it's the ability to communicate. This page is confusing a lot of people, so by definition, it is not well-designed. HN also advocates raising one's prices to imply value, and I think that's why this and other posts have had people questioning the price points for the content. Additionally, I don't think "Good question. Not sure." is good copy for when I can expect a product I've paid for.
- ahoyhere 14y ago
  > Design isn't someone's aesthetic or someone else's taste, it's the ability to communicate. This page is confusing a lot of people, so by definition, it is not well-designed. I don't really have a dog in this race but I am a designer and I am a writer, and hey, deconstructing sentences is fun. Starting at the top: > Design isn't someone's aesthetic or someone else's taste, it's the ability to communicate. This is not an accepted definition. In fact, it's a huge bone of contention. Exhibit A: the yearly surge of near-infinite "What Is Design!?" "Design Is…" articles. But let's pretend it is a canonical definition and then talk about what that would mean: > it's the ability to communicate. How do people communicate? They can only communicate if they hold things in common. Example: a language. What else? Belief systems. Culture. Background. Are aesthetics personal? Can different people hold different aesthetics? Can a mismatch between their aesthetics, like a mismatch in language or belief, cause a communication rift? Yes, yes it can. Ergo… > Design isn't someone's aesthetic or someone else's taste, … is wrong. If you don't think it's not, you've never tried to design something modern and sleek for lawyers… or tried to persuade somebody who loves floral wallpaper to side with Adolf Loos. "Things that look better, work better," research has shown… but did they test it on people outside the culture that created the object tested? What is "better," exactly? This is why knowing your audience's taste (beliefs about aesthetic) is critical to communicating effectively and, ergo, why aesthetics are a huge part of design. > This page is confusing a lot of people, so by definition, it is not well-designed. Let's take the two assumptions here: 1. This page confuses a lot of people 2. That means it's not well-designed Even if you accept 1 as true, that does not lead to 2 as neatly as you suppose it does. What if it confuses people who are not his audience in the first place? What if it confuses people who aren't really interested in conversion rates, but simply interested because Nathan Barry is becoming an HN darling? Casual surfers, you might call them. If casual surfers are the only ones confused, then does that mean the page is not well-designed? What if what you consider "awkwardness" in the design actually attracts other people who are in the author's target audience, while repelling people who are the internet equivalent of windowshoppers? Is that not the definition of well-designed? Finally, I think what you meant to say is "This page confuses a handful of people who are commenting on HN" which is not the same as "a lot of people."
  - 14y ago
calinet6 14y ago
The top comment on the post now contains some constructive comments with which I fully agree. Apologies for not having the time to elaborate.