3 ms·
I don't agree that 'ugly' is what popular sites are trying to do. I just think that it's poor designers. I won't even bother with a site that looks like it was
by domp 20y ago
I don't agree that 'ugly' is what popular sites are trying to do. I just think that it's poor designers. I won't even bother with a site that looks like it was made in the 90s. With a better designed site I have a better chance of going back and using their service.
In my opinion you only have around 10 seconds to make an impression on me with your website. If I see an ugly site I won't even bother looking any further. I'll just click the back button and never go back to your site again.
- aristus 20y agoPopular sites are not trying to be ugly -- they are trying to be popular. Look at it this way: Myspace has $600 million dollars. If aesthetics were a competitive advantage with the /average/ (i.e. not a web professional) user, surely they'd spend some of that hiring Eric Meyers, don't you think?
- domp 20y agoYeah I see your point. But having an ugly site isn't going to help you gain popularity. I agree Myspace is probably not thinking of the design aspects. They're focusing on expanding their product and adding features. But when I look at Virb I think "Wow, this is what Myspace should look like". If Virb becomes a big competitor I guarantee that Myspace will be changing their design very quickly and calling up Eric Meyers.