8 ms·

No. Goverment web sites should be minimal design & content - black text on white background, no extra graphics. I don't want to pay taxes so that these latte-si

No. Goverment web sites should be minimal design & content - black text on white background, no extra graphics. I don't want to pay taxes so that these latte-sipping designers can create cool projects.

blowski 13y ago
Why should public services be ugly?
- switch007 13y ago
  They should be if it's cheaper (while still meeting the goals etc).
  - nwh 13y ago
    What correlation is there between expensive design and good design? I've seen projects that haven't cost more than a few hundred dollars and still look absolutely stunning. I've also seen projects developed this year that look like they have been dragged from the 90s, yet cost millions in today's money.
    - blowski 13y ago
      A lot of the time the design probably was sketched out in the 90s, and it's taken until this year to reach the development phase.
  - blowski 13y ago
    Making the website more appealing for non-geeks results in more non-geeks using the website. The website is a more cost-efficient way of servicing non-geek citizens. So spending money on good design can definitely be worth it. Assuming every penny spent on aesthetics is a penny wasted is a developer fallacy.
- laumars 13y ago
  Why do people insist that services which exist purely for quick searching of information have to be design-orientated and pretty? I hear the same arguments about developer sites (eg PHP manual) but frankly I prefer layouts with an emphasis on conveying content rather than watering down that content behind a wall of epic sized fonts, fading effects and huge scrollable areas. There's a time and place for each design choice, but government sites aren't there to look pretty, they're there for reference. And while it's entirely possible to have a such a layout that isn't ugly, in this instance I think the site has gone the other way (form over function) - so I'd sooner see be faced with an ugly site. NB this is coming from a dyslexic who equally hates being presented with walls of text.
  - RivieraKid 13y ago
    Because it improves people's lifes. The main purpose of governent is to improve people's lifes. But minimal websites doesn't have to be ugly of course.
    - laumars 13y ago
      You'd have to be pretty shallow to think that aesthetics are the be-all and end-all of improving peoples lives (and particularly in the case of government websites where they're just a tool; people just use them as a means to an end). Usability should be the most important factor of a government website. If it can be pretty and usable, then that's a bonus.
      - DanBC 13y ago
        "Design" means two things. To people like me and you it means "stupid things that prevent me from doing what I want. Things that are only there because someone thinks they look nice" To good designers it means "very carefully made choices that make information easier to find; that make websites easier to use; and that have the added benefit of making things less ugly." I say that a book is often a great example of minimal design. Designers point out that books have hundreds of years of cumulative design - the fonts have been iterated; the layout and the margins and the indents and everything has all had decades of iteration. I get the feeling that you and parent both agree and are now talking past each other.
robfitz 13y ago
You are conflating minimal and cheap. A good minimal design takes the same sort of person (who may or may not enjoy milky coffee) as a good design of any other aesthetic.
scott_riley 13y ago
I drink espressos.
- josefresco 13y ago
  Fun fact: The primary ingredient of a latte is: espresso.
yen223 13y ago
You want government websites to look like a domain-squatter's page: https://www.gov.uk/ https://www.gov.uk/ ?
- RivieraKid 13y ago
  This is the most good-looking gov. web I've seen.
- JoeKM 13y ago
  Yes please. That is the most beautiful government website I've ever seen. Simple. Readily informative. Not only is the landing page excellent, but most websites can't figure out layout beyond the landing page. Check out an article page: https://www.gov.uk/being-taken-to-employment-tribunal-by-employee/lose-the-case https://www.gov.uk/being-taken-to-employment-tribunal-by-emp... Simply elegant. Edit - The landing page could look less like a sea of links if they put a simple 16x16 glyph icon next to each link that represents it.
EliRivers 13y ago
I pay taxes and I want government sites that are easy to navigate and efficiently designed. Black text on white background does not meet my requirements. This design - which I bet puts over 50% of user requirements in those eight simple pictures at the top - meets my requirements. A page full of black text on a white background? Sounds like you're on some kind of ideological trip.
PhilipA 13y ago
Never underestimate the competition between municipalities, which are also fought on the web.
stmchn 13y ago
Have you seen the state of some government websites today? Sure they're "minimal" (often not, sometimes they're just plain ugly) but almost always difficult to navigate. You underestimate how difficult it is to organize information-dense government websites. I think people will ultimately get more value out of a well designed site.
DanBC 13y ago
Plain text is not accessible. Plain text fails to help people with motor control problems; with cognitive problems; etc.
RivieraKid 13y ago
You make an assumption that super simple website is the optimal balance between quality and price. I think that it's wrong. First, minimalistic websites with good UX are not significantly cheaper. And second, if the webstite has a lot of visitors, it makes sense to pay lot of money for even small improvements of the UX.
bengillies 13y ago
What does paying taxes and drinking lattes have to do with building a website? Yes you pay taxes to the government, and yes they're in the process of updating their websites (and largely doing a fantastic job of it), but your taxes don't enter into it. The government allocates a certain amount of money towards the process, and that money gets spent on building new websites. That's it. You don't pay for it directly. Please don't pretend that you are.
mattacular 13y ago
Yeah, this is definitely the one waste of tax dollars that you should be outraged about.
bwang8 13y ago
The cost of designing a page such as this over a minimalist website is so negligible in terms of the amount the government spend and take everyday, that it is simply not necessary to nitpick. This could be just thought of as an experiment in governmental website design. I think sometimes the "people" act like the worst managers that they micro-manages and want to squeeze every penny, while missing the big picture.
rhygar 13y ago
Says the guy who thought "cooking recipes as Gantt charts" was a good idea: http://kangasbros.fi/visual-cookbook/ http://kangasbros.fi/visual-cookbook/

blowski 13y ago

Why should public services be ugly?

switch007 13y ago
They should be if it's cheaper (while still meeting the goals etc).
- nwh 13y ago
  What correlation is there between expensive design and good design? I've seen projects that haven't cost more than a few hundred dollars and still look absolutely stunning. I've also seen projects developed this year that look like they have been dragged from the 90s, yet cost millions in today's money.
  - blowski 13y ago
    A lot of the time the design probably was sketched out in the 90s, and it's taken until this year to reach the development phase.
- blowski 13y ago
  Making the website more appealing for non-geeks results in more non-geeks using the website. The website is a more cost-efficient way of servicing non-geek citizens. So spending money on good design can definitely be worth it. Assuming every penny spent on aesthetics is a penny wasted is a developer fallacy.
laumars 13y ago
Why do people insist that services which exist purely for quick searching of information have to be design-orientated and pretty? I hear the same arguments about developer sites (eg PHP manual) but frankly I prefer layouts with an emphasis on conveying content rather than watering down that content behind a wall of epic sized fonts, fading effects and huge scrollable areas. There's a time and place for each design choice, but government sites aren't there to look pretty, they're there for reference. And while it's entirely possible to have a such a layout that isn't ugly, in this instance I think the site has gone the other way (form over function) - so I'd sooner see be faced with an ugly site. NB this is coming from a dyslexic who equally hates being presented with walls of text.
- RivieraKid 13y ago
  Because it improves people's lifes. The main purpose of governent is to improve people's lifes. But minimal websites doesn't have to be ugly of course.
  - laumars 13y ago
    You'd have to be pretty shallow to think that aesthetics are the be-all and end-all of improving peoples lives (and particularly in the case of government websites where they're just a tool; people just use them as a means to an end). Usability should be the most important factor of a government website. If it can be pretty and usable, then that's a bonus.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      "Design" means two things. To people like me and you it means "stupid things that prevent me from doing what I want. Things that are only there because someone thinks they look nice" To good designers it means "very carefully made choices that make information easier to find; that make websites easier to use; and that have the added benefit of making things less ugly." I say that a book is often a great example of minimal design. Designers point out that books have hundreds of years of cumulative design - the fonts have been iterated; the layout and the margins and the indents and everything has all had decades of iteration. I get the feeling that you and parent both agree and are now talking past each other.

robfitz 13y ago

You are conflating minimal and cheap. A good minimal design takes the same sort of person (who may or may not enjoy milky coffee) as a good design of any other aesthetic.

scott_riley 13y ago

I drink espressos.

josefresco 13y ago
Fun fact: The primary ingredient of a latte is: espresso.

yen223 13y ago

You want government websites to look like a domain-squatter's page: https://www.gov.uk/ https://www.gov.uk/ ?

RivieraKid 13y ago
This is the most good-looking gov. web I've seen.
JoeKM 13y ago
Yes please. That is the most beautiful government website I've ever seen. Simple. Readily informative. Not only is the landing page excellent, but most websites can't figure out layout beyond the landing page. Check out an article page: https://www.gov.uk/being-taken-to-employment-tribunal-by-employee/lose-the-case https://www.gov.uk/being-taken-to-employment-tribunal-by-emp... Simply elegant. Edit - The landing page could look less like a sea of links if they put a simple 16x16 glyph icon next to each link that represents it.

EliRivers 13y ago

I pay taxes and I want government sites that are easy to navigate and efficiently designed. Black text on white background does not meet my requirements. This design - which I bet puts over 50% of user requirements in those eight simple pictures at the top - meets my requirements. A page full of black text on a white background? Sounds like you're on some kind of ideological trip.

PhilipA 13y ago

Never underestimate the competition between municipalities, which are also fought on the web.

stmchn 13y ago

Have you seen the state of some government websites today? Sure they're "minimal" (often not, sometimes they're just plain ugly) but almost always difficult to navigate. You underestimate how difficult it is to organize information-dense government websites. I think people will ultimately get more value out of a well designed site.

DanBC 13y ago

Plain text is not accessible. Plain text fails to help people with motor control problems; with cognitive problems; etc.

RivieraKid 13y ago

You make an assumption that super simple website is the optimal balance between quality and price. I think that it's wrong. First, minimalistic websites with good UX are not significantly cheaper. And second, if the webstite has a lot of visitors, it makes sense to pay lot of money for even small improvements of the UX.

bengillies 13y ago

What does paying taxes and drinking lattes have to do with building a website? Yes you pay taxes to the government, and yes they're in the process of updating their websites (and largely doing a fantastic job of it), but your taxes don't enter into it. The government allocates a certain amount of money towards the process, and that money gets spent on building new websites. That's it. You don't pay for it directly. Please don't pretend that you are.

mattacular 13y ago

Yeah, this is definitely the one waste of tax dollars that you should be outraged about.

bwang8 13y ago

The cost of designing a page such as this over a minimalist website is so negligible in terms of the amount the government spend and take everyday, that it is simply not necessary to nitpick. This could be just thought of as an experiment in governmental website design. I think sometimes the "people" act like the worst managers that they micro-manages and want to squeeze every penny, while missing the big picture.

rhygar 13y ago

Says the guy who thought "cooking recipes as Gantt charts" was a good idea: http://kangasbros.fi/visual-cookbook/ http://kangasbros.fi/visual-cookbook/