I actually think your 1st design is far better than your 2nd.
Applying a bunch of dribbble.com trends to a website is not design, nor will it do you any favours.
Here's a few examples:
- The image. The first one communicates your service. The 2nd just freaks me out a little bit, what does it communicate?
- I like how your original design was contained. It had a feeling of folders/filing which reminded me of files/libraries. Now you're using 960.gs it's all a bit scattered, particularly with the misaligned latin book and copy.
-The only element that stands out to me on the 2nd design is the copy in the footer. This is useful to know and instantly communicates how effective your service might be.
Your first design could use some improvements in a number of area's, mainly the copy and UI. Yet you've focused the majority of your blogpost and redesign on aesthetics.
Unfortunately you've gone from a web service that looks as though it was put together by a developer, to a web service that looks like it was put together by a developer and a terrible designer.
Looking at other web app's designs is the wrong way to design. Going on dribbble will do you no favours. Look at your users and think, what will make their visit more enjoyable/desirable/effective etc etc.
I think the issue here is that programmers, and MBA's for that matter, tend to be convergent-thinkers, whereas designers tend to be divergent-thinkers. Relying on a convergent thought process to solve a problem isn't the most effective way to tackle an issue and therefore involving designers in this process produces far more effective results.
A designer is an individual that solves problems by the use of a divergent-thought led process (A process very different to that of an engineer or MBA). They find problems, and solve them. Since solving a problem is the very pinnacle of building a business, I disagree with you that your claim that a designer is going to be useless.
It seems within the Tech-World the role of the designer is skewed, to the point even designers believe that their only role is to deal with the pixels on the screen. Take a look at leading design consultancies, such as IDEO, frog and Continuum and then try and tell me that a designer's role within a start-up is 'inefficient'.
It does seem that the tech-world lags behind in terms of the role of the designer, when compared with that of Industrial Design for example.
Take IDEO. An Industrial Design consultancy at heart who over the last 10 years have evolved into a consultancy that focus's more broadly on innovation, design thinking, strategy and designing businesses.
Whereas once upon a time an Industrial Designer's job would be to 'skin' a product and bridge the gap between marketing and engineering. The Industrial Designers role at leading design focused now companies now play a more prominent part in the development of business. Providing a divergent-thought design led process to tackle problems surrounding the product and service.
Web designers are yet to take take this step. And for the most part focus on the designing of pixels as opposed to the designing of businesses.
Andrew Chen breaks down IDEO's philosophy of human led design in which they argue that there's 3 perspectives when developing a service, which for me really sums up the true value a design-founder can hold. That of Viability, Feasibility and Desirability.
In which:
IDEO design from a desirability focus which means that the user comes first, everything is done from their eyes with a keen focus on usability and aesthetics in result creating a product that is highly revelvant and desirable to the user.
I think more and more in the tech-world are starting to realise this, both designers and non-designers. Just look at the current opportunities for UX guys.
But in my opinion what we really need is more design founders and encourage more designers to spend less time on dribbble.com and more time studying the in's and out's of business.
Scoble doesn't point out why he see's instagram as the pinnacle of innovation, apart from the fact they've received a high number of downloads.
Instagram's success stems from the viral nature of wanting to try out these filter's that you've seen others using. Dont get me wrong, Instagram is a nice little service. But not the right example when compared to Google's recent failures in Wave and Buzz.
Besides, Google houses plenty of innovative products that match the success of Instagram.
Google's problem with its lack off 'innovation' within its recent failures stems from its products not being user led. Wave and Buzz solved no immediate problem for your average user. And I'm not so certain Instagram does.
Google could never create Instagram simply because creating a frivolous app based around styling your photos just doesn't align with their brand values. I can imagine the Google Engineers now, "So why are we using a sepia filter exactly?"
Applying a bunch of dribbble.com trends to a website is not design, nor will it do you any favours.
Here's a few examples: - The image. The first one communicates your service. The 2nd just freaks me out a little bit, what does it communicate? - I like how your original design was contained. It had a feeling of folders/filing which reminded me of files/libraries. Now you're using 960.gs it's all a bit scattered, particularly with the misaligned latin book and copy. -The only element that stands out to me on the 2nd design is the copy in the footer. This is useful to know and instantly communicates how effective your service might be.
Your first design could use some improvements in a number of area's, mainly the copy and UI. Yet you've focused the majority of your blogpost and redesign on aesthetics.
Unfortunately you've gone from a web service that looks as though it was put together by a developer, to a web service that looks like it was put together by a developer and a terrible designer.
Looking at other web app's designs is the wrong way to design. Going on dribbble will do you no favours. Look at your users and think, what will make their visit more enjoyable/desirable/effective etc etc.