March 24, 2004 | View Comments (32) | Category: Design
Summary: Is design really important.
While looking for a job I have been kind of looking at the world differently for some reason. One of the thoughts that has been sticking to me is the affects that design really has on a user's perspective of a brand or product. I like to say that design is important to delivering a message, but how important? This is one of those questions that you could provide an answer for, but is almost impossible to measure. In the future I will more than likely take on higher roles in organizations than just web designer (gotta use that Masters for something!) and it is quantifiable answers that "higher ups" are looking for. Let me go over an example of a site that made me question the impact of design.
For anyone who does not know, the GIMP (The GNU Image Manipulation Program) is the open source world's response to Photoshop. They recently redesigned their website. From their website:
The previous design of this site was created more than five years ago. It looked good at that time, but both the web and the GIMP have evolved since then.
Many talented contributors have worked on this new design and re-organized the pages in order to make it easier for you to find everything you need to know about the GIMP.
My first reaction to the site was of confusion. I knew what the GIMP was, but their website never gave me the impression that is was anything like Photoshop. Their website did not give me the impression that the GIMP is something that should be looked at or even respected in the software world. I got these impressions just on the design alone. Do "normal" users do the same? Does it even matter what their site looks like as long as it follows the usability guidelines of Nielsen or provides the user experience principles of Spool?
Nielsen is world famous. His site looks like crap. Jared Spool is widely respected in the industry yet his site does not give me any clue that he knows about user-interface design at all. In fact, I would be hesitant to let him touch any of my user interfaces by just looking at the design of his site. eBay is crazy popular and we all know about their website and the same can be said of Amazon.
I know individuals who are making 6 figures off of websites that are utter garbage. Looking at their stuff always makes me wonder how important is design to a company's success? Do we place too much value on design?
Apple places high priority on its design and although we as designers think that anyone in their right mind should own a Mac, it has not helped them gain any market share because they make pretty computers. However, desktop marketshare was probably lost long time ago. The iPod goes against the argument by showing how a killer design can create killer marketshare.
I know this goes against any of what I have said in the past and what many of peers have said over the years. I have just been in a state of mind that places me outside of the design world. I can see how many times us designers get caught up in our own design world thinking that the most important thing in the world is the design of things.
If your pretty design does not improve my metrics why should I care? Maybe I am jaded. Maybe the talk of the people-centric web has also helped to remind me that design may only be a small part of overall success. When it comes to websites though, I am really hesitant to see how aesthetics play any role in a site's success. Content is king of course, but to me it is looking like content may be the only part of the whole equation.
When you are placed in tight money situations I guess it changes your view and managers always see like they are in tight money situations. I had the answers in the past, but now they are lost. Time to find them again.
Trackback URL: http://9rules.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/186
I have found that priorities handed down from management tend to go in this order when money is tight (and it's always tight:
Seems a bit out of whack, no? Part of this is driven by our users, who tend to catch wind of projects that are still months away and start demanding that the latest and greatest be available well before it is even out of development and into testing...it can be a crazy world sometimes.
Paul G (http://www.relativelyabsolute.com)
So then is it always worth it to put a major emphasis on design? Or should the design be the last aspect to be looked at?
Questions to make us think more than anything I guess.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
Of course, content is king, but do you really feel invited reading a site which is not aesthetically pleasing?
I think a good design does help to get the content to the user. All the other aspects like navigational structure and so on do their part as well. But what is the first thing most people react upon after loading your (or any) webpage? It the overall look, the design, to be precise.
Interface and such things help the now interested user to find what he or she is looking for. But design is the initial step.
Kronn (http://kronn.de)
Still not seeing any reason why I should focus on design when I can look at eBay and see how successful they were.
Or Nielsen, or Spool, or Amazon...
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
I think you really have to look at both the designer / owner of the site and their intended audience.
Most of the sites you've mentioned - with the exception of EBay, Amazon and Apple - are technically oriented, left brained, highly logical type sites created by the same type individual.
Look at any engineering site, they are all similar. Logical and boring, just like the industry they deal with.
Apple's website certainly isn't hurting their marketshare - they lost that a long time before they even had a website. But the design works for their audience. Imagine the negative uproar if Microsoft adopted a similiar design as Apple - wouldn't work for them.
Regarding Ebay, Amazon, Google, Yahoo...et al. These are the most highly visited, most used sites on the planet. Many times they are the starting pages of most common folks' browser. Obviously they are doing something right in terms of design and usability for the masses, yet I seem to hear more and more voices of web designers wanting to redesign them because apparently their current design doesn't work.
Huh?
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Reading large blocks of text on a monitor is not the most comfortable method of getting information.
Personally, I click off of a page if the Web page aesthetics are so distracting that they interfere with my reading. I'd rather search for another source, then suffer through an ugly page.
Lena (http://www.ontask.net/)
Ebay, Nielsen and Amazon put a lot of work in advertising. Or maybe I should say: They are already big. The first step (to get the interest of the visitor) is no more necessary.
If I find a link in a blog or e-mail, I only read the page if I'm interested. This may be because of existing reputation, but if I don't know the site, ugly sites have a harder job there.
Of course, if there is a clever and interesting heading or a good picture or some quoted statement, the chances rise. But this is information design, isn't it?
Kronn (http://kronn.de)
I'm not saying that the order I posted before is the correct one, mind you, I'm just saying that that is (unfortunately) the way it tends to go. It feels more like throwing scraps of meat at the wolves to keep them happy enough that they don't start gnawing on your feet.
I wish design was better integrated into the process and not just an afterthought, mainly because it can really enhance the content. As sites like the aforementioned Ebay and Amazon can attest, if the demand for your content is high enough, people will slog though your design to get to it. How much better, then, if they don't have to slog at all, but can almost effortlessly zip directly to what they're looking for without getting frustrated. Navigation/User Experience is inextricably intertwined with design.
Paul G (http://www.relativelyabsolute.com)
This is where we need to start coming up with numbers I think though. Remember, I am playing the role of a manager here who is focusing on the bottom line. I see something like ebay that is successful it is going to make me question why we should put so much time in money on the design and not just focus on providing something new with killer content. Obviously the people will be willing to ignore the design.
Kronn: You are still looking through the eyes of a designer. I hate looking at ugly webpages to, but the pretty ones only seem to occupy 1% of the web at the moment.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
Well the nice thing about minimalist design is that it's inherently faster to produce and debug. So there is always a baseline design that can be achieved without spending a ton of money.
How much time it takes to tweak the design for usability aspects depends largely on the complexity of the content. But I believe that is the most important part for most websites.
If the website is for a big marketing campaign then image may be more important than substance, but in general I think the web is so functional that it seems a shame to waste its potential on simply creating an image that could be more successfully communicated through a television ad or printed material. Of course this depends on your definition of success. A good website with lots of easily accessible information is largely intangible. If it's not direct sales there are no real metrics (other than hits) to gauge success because you don't know how that contributes to the bottom line.
Of course, it's much easier to factor in the intangibles in a specific situation. So my unsatisfyingly vague answer to your question is "it depends".
Gabe (http://www.websaviour.com/nexus/)
Well, maybe I do...
If your are the manager or something like that, I'd advice you to:
- produce good content
- structure it
- advertise for it
The webpage which then contains the greatest content of all times with the best structure would be well known through the ads. No real need for design there. Just the minimal: a color, a logo and maybe a little whitespace. It would work, of course.
But if the visitor came through a search engine, the design is important. Does the user want to read and stay or go on to the next search result? The decision is made in milli-seconds. If the design emphasizes the important things (headings, sections), chances are good that the visitor will read more. The lower limit for such a design is indeed very low. When I say design, I think of styling headings and text.
A nice rounded courner will not pay you any bill if your audience is not waiting to see one.
Kronn (http://kronn.de)
The problem with the GIMP site anyway (aside from the program being something only a linux junkie could really love) is that they only care about what the gimp is, and not what it does.
I mean, compare photoshop's homepage with the gimp's. The gimp's is just... ugh.
"This is the official web site of the GIMP, and contains information about downloading, installing, using, and enhancing it. This site also serves as a distribution point for the latest releases. We try to provide as much information about the GIMP community and related projects as possible. Hopefully you will find what you need here. "
Now, when is a statement like that needed on a webpage? In the words of most good writing teachers... don't tell me, show me! This isn't much short of saying "this is my diary. In here, I will discuss things about me, and things that are important to me, and feature pictures of my cat"
You'd think that a group of people dedicated to creating a design tool that they somehow have deluded themselves into believing will rival photoshop would be able to come up with some degree of design that would complement and show off the product... instead they've made it look like the official website of a highschool coding project. Hide the gnu stuff off on a back page. Dump the text. Show me what it can do. Sell it to me! (and this from someone who *hates* being marketed to)
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
"So then is it always worth it to put a major emphasis on design? Or should the design be the last aspect to be looked at?"
From an email discussion I had with Didier of SuperfluousBanter:
-----
With respect to Aesthetics, I think there is a third reason why it has been lacking in the high-tech product design sector that is a key point most people ignore in the field. It has to do with how aesthetics and their perceived value or quality are actually relative. That is, Yahoo, Google and eBay can get away with poor aesthetics simply because relative to the other offerings out there in terms of functionality, there's not much to choose from.
Yet.
And that I think is a key point. The car companies in the US avoided the importance of aesthetics and design until it was much too late and the Japanese and Germans crushed us. Once cars functioned fairly close to each other, what was the differentiating factor? Design.
Look at Target these days, with their relationship with Michael Grave Design. They are truly moving up the food chain in terms of what department stores people shop at. They are offering products in the same price points, but the design is so much better. Target is seemingly killing its competition, like K-Mart and Sears.
-----
Where we are at this stage of the game in high-tech is at the same level the automobile insdutry was in before the 1940s. That is, everything was about the engine. In high-tech, this equates to everything being about code and getting core functionality operating correctly.
The 1940s, 50s and 60s of the auto industry were considered the golden Age of Design. I think we are nearing very closing to that age in high-tech. It still a few years out, but it is coming fast.
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
This is a tough discussion to have, really, because there are huge holes of opportunity left in the internet.
Andrei said it:
"because relative to the other offerings out there in terms of functionality, there's not much to choose from.
Yet."
And you said it, Scrivs:
"I know individuals who are making 6 figures off of websites that are utter garbage."
It all depends on the maturity of the market, and I've said it on my blog, there are a lot of people who still don't get it, hell, look at Apple. But the key there is this quote:
"Yeah, I'll plod through it, cause the prize is worth the effort"
So I might say design it only as good as you need to; maybe as a manager you want the most bang for your buck, no?
Then build a site that is just that much better then the competition. When they even out, take it up another notch. Stay ahead, but don't put the pedal down because for now, why enter the 20% zone when 75% is enough?
Mike P. (http://www.fiftyfoureleven.com.com/sandbox/weblog/)
The problem you're running into is that you're thinking of design as having only one purpose. Design is many things:
- Graphical design is the bit that gives customers their first impression. It's all-important for first-time visitors, but once they're customers they want it out of the way. You have to balance these.
- Usability design is massively important for first-time visitors; they need to be able to use the site instantly. But once they're long-time customers they will have learnt your interface, no matter how bad it is. Thus the poor designs of Amazon and Ebay matter not one bit -- they've hit critical mass, so it doesn't matter that they're crap. (Also why Windows is still being used)
- Functionality design, i.e. what functionality you include, matters a lot to repeat customers: being able to do a lot of things, things that you might not want to do so often. These rare actions are unimportant to new visitors and in fact presenting them with all options will probably confuse them, so that's another balance you have to strike. Ebay lives on because it's got everything and the kitchen sink, even if it is confusing.
- And finally, for frequent visitors, usability comes into play again, but a different kind -- they don't care if it's not obvious what to do, once it's very *quick* to do it once you've learned how. Amazon's one-click solved this problem for them.
Incidentally, the three major desktop operating systems are all extremes of each school of design. Macs have historically been all about the new user: graphical and obvious, but laborious for a "power" user to get lots done (no longer the case in OS X, since it's got UNIX stuff underneath). Windows is all about functionality: everything and the kitchen sink is in there, *somewhere* -- just keep clicking around and it'll turn up eventually. Linux is the power user's operating system -- it's totally impossible to work out what to do from a standing start, but once you've got the hang of it you can be very efficient indeed.
And this is where operating systems are after more than 30 years; they haven't solved the balance between these design schools, they've just chosen a niche each, and are sitting there trying to take over the other two: Macs are (quite successfully!) wooing power users by adopting UNIX under the hood. Linux is furiously trying (with mixed results, so far) to produce a new-user friendly graphical front end. Windows is adding remote terminal services and other power-user-friendly features, also with mixed success.
Websites as a concept have been around only about a third of that time, and very few individual websites have been around for more than 5 years. So it's no wonder we haven't found this balance yet -- maybe it's not even possible to find the balance, and you have to lean towards one extreme or another, depending on the types of users you typically attract (forum sites will want functionality, e-commerce sites usability, corporate sites graphical design).
So if your question is "what use is your pretty site if it doesn't improve my metrics" the answer is "none" -- if it's not improving your metrics, then your concentrating on the right type of design for the types of users you have (or, just possibly, your site is perfect. But we seriously doubt that...)
Laurie (http://www.seldo.com)
A personal experience:
I used to work for a very image-focused company. They wanted a whiz-bang site that looked exactly like a printed brochure (don’t even get me started on that). Mission accomplished: they got a very pretty site. However, most users saw it and had a lukewarm reaction to it, because neither the design nor the content let users know what the company was about, and for existing customers it didn’t offer any features. They couldn’t do business through the site since it was essentially brochureware, so that led to either lost customers or “just another pretty page”.
Since then, the site’s focus has turned to more realistic matters like helping gain and retain customers via online services, and better explanation of the company and how they can help customers conduct business in the brochure parts of the site. It’s a shame that it took so long to get to that point, but they have now learned.
As for me, I still think design matters, but yes content is king. However, if you have a nice design and it helps users get to what they want faster rather than seemingly saying “hey we’re cool, look at this!”, it can affect the company’s bottom line in a positive way. Just how much it can affect the bottom line is probably not the easiest thing to determine though; maybe some of the recipients of redesigns from the Version 2 contests can help put some numbers together.
Vinnie Garcia (http://blog.vinniegarcia.com)
Great post, Laurie!
You can find parallels all over the place. Why do so many people shop at warehouse-style stores when there are so many prettier stores out there? Why do so many people shop at Filene's Basement at Downtown Crossing in Boston, where most of the clothing is tossed haphazardly into big bins? In this case, it's because they care more about price than appearance (and in the case of Filene's basement, usability).
But then, there are plenty of people who value appearance more highly. Like someone else mentioned, this is why Target is doing so well compared to places like Kmart.
You could also maybe draw a parallel to human relationships. Graphic design is like a person's appearance. It's really important for an initial impression. Personality is kind of like usability: if they're close-mouthed and grumpy, it won't be easy to be in their company. And you could say their conversation is like content.
There are people who are quite happy with beautiful empty-headed friends, just as there are people who are happy with plain-looking, gregarious friends, just as there are people happy with their witty and interesting friends who happen to be on the sarcastic and bitter side.
Ok, maybe that's a little on the silly side. Anyway, you don't have to be perfect at everything to be successful, but it sure doesn't hurt, right?
Jennifer Grucza (http://jennifergrucza.com)
Laurie, I certainly agree with Jennifer that your thoughts hit the nail on the head in many respects.
I think it would be quite interesting to setup two websites that have the same structure and content, but differing designs. One very minimalistic, while the other given a little more aesthetic attention and to see which one offers better metrics.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
My experience is that a swift design, even subtly discreet (think ebay or amazon here), helps convey the message.
So yes, being tight on budget always gives the implusion needed to throw design overboard as loss-and-profit, in the 'loss' column.
But it's a mistake. See Andrei's post: the comparison with cars is pertinent, I feel.
Every time I've got a trainee in my office (yes, some people are crazy enough to let me have trainees), I explain the first rule of thumb for me: design is at the service of content. Most often why has it been neglected? Because the web was done by computer people for quite a time, and god knows they're not all of them aesthetes.
Where was I going again?
Oh yes: design works as a hook most of the time, but also it accompanies the reader in continuing to read. How many times do you stop reading an article online because of poor typography or poor layout? (not to mention poor spelling and grammar, of course).
Design is not paramount, this we can all agree on, and all the '[insert here the paramount flashy technology] site of the day' gimmicks often show that content is not there. No content, no coming back.
As for Jakob Nielsen and Jared Spool, we've got a saying in France: it's always the shoe-maker who's wearing the poorest shoes. ;)
Yet UIE.com has a coherent navigation scheme, yet simple to grasp (or should I say "and simple to grasp"), an interface understandable at first sight, text columns easily readable, both through width and through good use of typography (even though there's a tendency these days to explore other fonts than Verdana, it still serves its legibility purpose).
No perceptible design is not the same as simple design. We all make the same mistake. Be it not for this post I would have enver questioned the un-designed aspect of UIE.com.
s t e f (http://www.nota-bene.org/)
Damn, I make too many typos.
The last paragraph should read:
'No perceptible design' is not the same as 'simple design'. We all make the same mistake. Be it not for this post I would have never questioned the un-designed aspect of UIE.com.
Paul, feel free to mix the two posts in one ;)))
s t e f (http://www.nota-bene.org/)
"Still not seeing any reason why I should focus on design when I can look at eBay and see how successful they were. Or Nielsen, or Spool, or Amazon..."
One word; Reputation.
Those sites have a reputation. I heard about Amazon months before I even bothered to go looking for them, and it is the same for eBay. When I first went looking for eBay (yes – people go looking for eBay – it doesn’t find them) , it wasn't because people had been telling me "They're site has a great design", it was because people had been telling me "You can buy anything on there". And guess what? I needed to buy something. They had the right reputation, so I went there.
Other sites, however, do not have reputation. These are the sites that need good design for 'first-time visitors'. It can make the difference between getting and loosing the customer. However, again, usability plays a just as big (if not a bigger) role as design in keeping the customer, or indeed getting them.
So I would say that if the site is meant to attract NEW customers/visitors, then design and usability are as equally important as each other. But, they need to be done in such a way that they don’t hinder 'old time visitors'. And that is where Functionality comes in.
It is a hard balance to find, and even though I know the theory of it, I don't get it right. I hope to some day.
Remember it’s about balance - and circumstances.
For example;
www.barbaraskitchen.co.uk
This site is not the best site for design. I wouldn't blame a person for leaving without giving it a second thought.
BUT; if someone had told you about this company, and that they are the best people on the planet for Bread. There is a good chance that you wouldn’t care about the design, and would buy anyway. Why, because they have a reputation.
phil baines (http://www.wubbleyew.com/blog/)
Good topic to bring up, scrivs.
UIE.com certainly has a good way of laying things out, but I wouldn't stay on there for more than 2 seconds because of the color choices, etc. I could easily fix that site up to have some nice borders, better colors, and maybe a *little* eyecandy thrown in for good measure (graphical bullet points, maybe a small photo in the content, etc.). But does that matter for the normal (non-PS-user) visitor? Do they care? I guess that's the question you're asking here. And I'm certainly wondering about it, too.
thomas (http://gendes.elivy.com)
Let's not confuse "design" with "aesthetics". As Lauri points out above, graphic design is just one portion of design.
Design, as I see it, is about two things: 1) My Goals, and 2) My Constraints. In particular, Design is "How do I best achive my goals within my constraints."
Aesthetics may help me achieve the goals, but they might not be necessary. Might Nielson do better on his goals with better aesthetics? Maybe, but he is almost certainly doing "good enough" with crummy aesthetics. As such, his design is working "good enough".
wink (http://site-unseen.net/wink)
[Beware! I did not have my coffee yet, so this might be a little uncoherent. You have been warned.]
Some nice points covered in the comments, but one has been left out that is also important.
What about your positioning, what kind of message do you want to convey with your site?
Yes, that's marketing I'm talking about here. I have seen eBay, and it sucks. Text everywhere, ugly mismatched colours and a navigation that is harder to understand than people who believe in the "one bullet theory" that explained JFK's murder.
But it is definately a place where I can get cheap stuff. A site that ugly only cares about quantity and not me. Quantity == Cheap stuff.
Now, that view can be totally wrong, maybe they do care alot about the customer, but I just want cheap goods. The site reflects the markety, el cheapo kind of vibe that I search for when looking for the 'bestest deal 'round!'.
We could flp this, too. Picture this: You are going to a high-society party. You want some pants. Not ordinairy pants, no, you want really good ones. And because you are in a bit of a hurry, you decide to shop online.
Quality == Expensive. Think mercedes, remy martin and prada. They don't market their products, they give you a whole experience. Expensive looking commercials, expensive marketing and expensive sites. A feast for the sensory organs. It might not be all that functional, but I'm willing to fight my way through the noise and get my expensive, ego-licking merchandise.
I'm using goods here as an example, but this can also be any other type of products.
A web site is, among other things, a marketing tool. Advertising, baby. Design plays the biggest role when it comes to delivering a message to the users. A "badly designed" site (notice the "") still conveys a strong message.
And who says that a design is only of good quality if it looks nice? It's all about sending the right message through the right design.
And yes, hear-say is still the best advertising. Ever.
[m] (http://mantaworks.nl)
A quick note about the UIE site from the inside (I work there):
I've been getting feedback emails about the UIE.com site for almost 2 years now. I have never heard anybody once mention that they disliked our visual design. (I do take note of the comments here, however)
Frankly, I don't like it much myself. It's rather boring. We've had it for 7 years, though, and everyone who has ever heard of us knows what our web site looks like: simply because it's never changed. There is something to be said about recognizing a brand (not that all changes would wreck that).
The things we do focus on, however, are almost never visual because appearance rarely matters after an initial impression. One example of this is that we had some researchers complaining loudly that some of our articles didn't have dates on them. They wanted to reference our articles for some presentation or paper they were giving. They would say harsh things about us (as you have done about our visual design) and claim that we shouldn't call ourselves a usability company.
After we fixed that problem (http://www.uie.com/articles/) and added dates to 95% of the articles, we've had no complaints at all.
As someone else mentioned, it's a simple matter of knowing what your audience cares about. Should we hear more from people who are both our customers and who hate our visual design, then I'm sure we'd spend more time investigating it. Right now, we've simply got too many other things to worry about.
Joshua Porter (http://www.uie.com)
I agree with Keith—it depends. Depending on the client, the product, the market, and the audience. Sometimes design should be at the forefront and can really boost sales (yes, with actual evidence in direct corelation with design) and sometimes it's just a superfluous pick-me-up for the brand.
I read an article about the state of Samsung. In the mid-90s, Samsung was struggling with international sales. The products themselves weren't bad, but SOMEthing was wrong. Realizing that they needed to be more aggressive in the marketplace, Samsung took their in-house design team and sent them around the world on, frankly, "design education" trips. It took one year; their designers paid to learn! They had teachers from the Art Centre in Pasedena come over and re-teach them of looking new ways about design. They were already great designers, but they had to be introduced to American design culture to see what might spur sales. They had to go back and check out what their consumers wanted.
As a result, Samsung has come back to the forefront of electronics. Especially cell phones. And they look good, too.
It can also apply to consumer websites. I buy a lot of items online; even from some merchants which are not very well known. Even if a price is cheaper on one website, if the website looks shabby, then my level of trust decreases, even if the company is completely legitimate.
Lea (http://xox.lealea.net/)
I think that Laurie brought up a good point. I'd extend that by saying everything in moderation.
I would kind of look at it like cooking. Everything in moderation. Too much focus on one ingredient and the food will taste horrible.
You need to balance information design, visual design, usability design, etc. Personally, eBay is too busy and confusing for me visually, so every time I think about using it, I just leave. They have improved significantly, but still lack the consistency of a strong visual and informational design.
Then there's this post(via Kottke) that the flea-market image of eBay could actually be beneficial.
We are still a long ways away from fignuring what's best.
Garrett Dimon (http://www.yourusabilityresource.com)
I just received the new email of UIEtips: The Top 3 Priorities of the Talking Horse. This article seems to support the discussion happening here about the idea that people suffer through designs when there is no other choice.
chase (http://www.ontask.net/)
I keep reading about ebay and amazon and their poor design. I agree. However, that's not why we go there. I'm reminded of Rock singers and rap singers (an oxymoron) and sports people with beautiful girlfriends. If they weren't talented, they wouldn't be famous or they wouldn't have beautiful girlfriends. It's not their faces people - it's what they do that draws the crowd and the BYTs. Ebay is successful because it works. It could almost be lurid pink or DOS in appearance. It might almost have a command line interface (it's so complicated sometimes that it's almost as hard to use as CLI). If you're not ebay or amazon, if you have a little pride and you want to 'raise the bar' then please continue to do pleasing things. ebay probably won't come along with you but others might.
And when something better comes along that also looks better and works better, good design might be one of the things that gets it going. Um, why am I suddenly thinking Google?
David Martin
Keep track of comments to all entries with the Comments Feed
©2003-06 9rules, Inc. | Thoughts Feed | Notes Feed
Amazon Stores: Powertools | Jewelry | Books | Health | Landscaping | Kitchen | Movies
#1
Better design = Better Perception
Perception isn't always reality, but in most cases better design leads to a better perception.
Whether the company follows through on backing up that perception is another thing.
Ultimately, design is one piece to a much larger puzzle. You might be able to tell what it is without all the pieces, but it will still have holes.
Garrett Dimon (http://www.yourusabilityresource.com)