Does design really matter for startups?(attackofdesign.com)
attackofdesign.com
Does design really matter for startups?
http://www.attackofdesign.com/does-design-really-matter-for-start-ups/
42 comments
wasn't a startup, tweeting machine. The guy posted a 2 part writeup on his experience [1].
[1] http://tbbuck.com/building-a-web-application-that-makes-500-...
http://tbbuck.com/building-a-web-application-that-makes-500-...
[1] http://tbbuck.com/building-a-web-application-that-makes-500-...
http://tbbuck.com/building-a-web-application-that-makes-500-...
Thanks! That's exactly what I was referring to.
There's general misrepresentation throughout this conversation and the article that design is merely a veneer that you either choose to implement or not at some point.
Design is about solving problems, and a design led company/individual adopts a certain mind frame that often tends to contrast that of the engineer.
If you're designing a consumer product and your engineered concept works so well that you can actually consider whether or not you 'design' it, well, lucky you.
Design is about solving problems, and a design led company/individual adopts a certain mind frame that often tends to contrast that of the engineer.
If you're designing a consumer product and your engineered concept works so well that you can actually consider whether or not you 'design' it, well, lucky you.
Some of the points in this article ie: "at its core “good UX” just means “a good product”" is not true and shows that while this guy may be hip on the latest trends, has a solid enough grasp on some concepts, he is just starting out in the field and does not truly understand what designers do, what design is, and thusly he doubts the reason for "design" as he describes it (thus the reason for this post). Unfortunately this sort of thing gains traction because most of the internet, and in turn the HN readership, really dont understand design or how to talk about it.
I really wish HN had more articles about design, but oft times it just flows into a diatribe about visual style, which is just one sub component of design.
I really wish HN had more articles about design, but oft times it just flows into a diatribe about visual style, which is just one sub component of design.
Design informs your implementation. Implementation is king.
Decoration merely helps.
Decoration merely helps.
Design is more than just decoration. If design is done right, design is how it works.
Well, calling it "decoration" in itself implies that it's not important, so it's not saying much. Not sure I get your point…?
To both of you (sgdesign, justinph), yes design is 'how it works' as well as 'how it wears time and use' and 'how it breaks'. I did not just use two words--design and decoration--to mean the same thing.
That would be almost as redundant as what I'm doing now. :)
That would be almost as redundant as what I'm doing now. :)
TLDR: yes
Asking if design makes a difference is kind of a silly question. We know it makes a difference. Using A/B testing, or even just by changing one element at a time, we can measure improvements in things like conversion ratios or download rates.
Of course, to measure if each part of your design is effective, you have to change it in isolation. I wouldn't surprised if there are elements of the new Wordpress site that decrease conversion, as well as some which are increasing it. If the design had been iterated on, instead of just rolling out the new design, we might know which elements should have been changed to create better results.
Of course, to measure if each part of your design is effective, you have to change it in isolation. I wouldn't surprised if there are elements of the new Wordpress site that decrease conversion, as well as some which are increasing it. If the design had been iterated on, instead of just rolling out the new design, we might know which elements should have been changed to create better results.
A/B tests show their limits when it comes to design. You can't A/B test a brand or a logo, or even a background or a font. And you can't test elements of a new design in isolation, that doesn't make any sense. Elements of a design have to work together as a whole.
Everything you've listed except for a "brand" (and the usage here seems pretty ill-defined) is very A/B testable. I'm not really sure how to refute that, but the idea that they aren't is ridiculous. Would that be effective and produce good results? Maybe not - that's a great discussion to have, but whether or not it's possible isn't.
Similarly, you're right - elements of a design do not exist in isolation. However, any design will have a series of choices that resulted in its various elements. Some choices are small/minor enough that there exist other elements that also work together with the whole, and so A/B testing them isn't some insult to the idea of design, but an at least plausible decision-making tactic.
Similarly, you're right - elements of a design do not exist in isolation. However, any design will have a series of choices that resulted in its various elements. Some choices are small/minor enough that there exist other elements that also work together with the whole, and so A/B testing them isn't some insult to the idea of design, but an at least plausible decision-making tactic.
Well ok, you could A/B test replacing Arial by Helvetica, but it would be pretty meaningless and probably not make any difference.
That doesn't mean that there is no difference. Maybe on a subconscious level, people would start to perceive your site and relate to your brand differently.
And maybe changing the font, and then the background separately would not make a difference, but changing both at the same time would make an impact. All those things are A/B testable in theory, but I don't think it would be very effective.
And maybe changing the font, and then the background separately would not make a difference, but changing both at the same time would make an impact. All those things are A/B testable in theory, but I don't think it would be very effective.
If you think the background and the font together are going to make a change, then by all means, conduct a test and see if whichever metric you're working with goes up. I'm in favour of isolating changes as much as possible, but if you believe that two elements of your design work only in concert with each other, then they should be modified accordingly. These aren't random permutations you test, they're new tweaks to a design that you suspect might help.
Sure, changing the font may be meaningless, but at least with a test, you KNOW it's meaningless. I try to let experience and taste guide my changes, but without checking that the change is effective you're just guessing.
Design exists to further a goal. Sometimes the goal is brand related, which I'll admit is just about impossible to measure, and sometimes it's seeing if you can reduce the frequency of support requests. One of these is obviously a better candidate for A/B testing.
[Edited to fix a spelling error]
Sure, changing the font may be meaningless, but at least with a test, you KNOW it's meaningless. I try to let experience and taste guide my changes, but without checking that the change is effective you're just guessing.
Design exists to further a goal. Sometimes the goal is brand related, which I'll admit is just about impossible to measure, and sometimes it's seeing if you can reduce the frequency of support requests. One of these is obviously a better candidate for A/B testing.
[Edited to fix a spelling error]
Design is more than a nice little picture, you can just have text on a page and you still design. Many people that don't know about design think its about images, it's usability, it's brand, it's feel, it's your damn company!! :)
Hacker News or Stack Overflow are good examples of very successful sites that have horrible visual design.
Does anyone else actually like the visual design of HN? Besides the endless horizontal text problem, it's very easy to read, and there are no distractingly bad UI elements. Good minimalism, to me.
Does anyone else actually like the visual design of HN? Besides the endless horizontal text problem, it's very easy to read, and there are no distractingly bad UI elements. Good minimalism, to me.
HN could look much better without adding anything. You could spend endless hours tweaking alignment, margins, rhythm and typography.
HN's design currently delivers a solid performance and its content is great. Looking a bit strange to passersby is probably a good thing, I don't think HN's focus is attracting new people, especially new people who are only attracted by the visual design.
I have no idea why the visual design of Stack Overflow is called horrible. It's ok, not awesome but certainly ok.
HN's design currently delivers a solid performance and its content is great. Looking a bit strange to passersby is probably a good thing, I don't think HN's focus is attracting new people, especially new people who are only attracted by the visual design.
I have no idea why the visual design of Stack Overflow is called horrible. It's ok, not awesome but certainly ok.
Maybe "horrible" is a little strong to talk about HN and SO. "Unappealing" would've been a better word. Stack Overflow especially barely has any styling.
By the way, in that section I was talking purely about visual design, i.e. styling, or "eye candy". I'm not debating the fact that both sites have great user experience (in fact that's specifically why I picked them as examples).
By the way, in that section I was talking purely about visual design, i.e. styling, or "eye candy". I'm not debating the fact that both sites have great user experience (in fact that's specifically why I picked them as examples).
Hacker News’s visual design is just “boring” (though the lines of text that stretch all the way to the edge of wide windows with no space in between them are a pretty bad feature that could be trivially fixed), but I think “horrible” is an entirely fair description of Stack Overflow’s design. It’s claustrophobic and cluttered to the point of being nearly unreadable. Fortunately, the main use of Stack Overflow is arriving from Google, and the question and answer pages – after you scroll past the half-screen of cluttered headers – aren’t too unreasonable.
What you call eye candy, I call trendiness. To take the closest example: Attack Of Design looks lovely, but that background noisy pixel look is very 2010/2011.
Heh, I still got a couple months before it's out of date then!
I think you're right, trendiness does play a big role in style. And it's also true that complex designs generally get outdated faster than minimalist designs (see: 100% of Flash sites made between 2000 and 2005).
On the other hand, it's harder to brand minimalism. So like every design choice, it's a trade-off.
I think you're right, trendiness does play a big role in style. And it's also true that complex designs generally get outdated faster than minimalist designs (see: 100% of Flash sites made between 2000 and 2005).
On the other hand, it's harder to brand minimalism. So like every design choice, it's a trade-off.
Well put. And I forgot to mention: thanks for the article! I especially like your definition of "feel", distinct from "look".
Visual design is a bit like fashion. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that (just as there is nothing wrong with fashion).
Yeah, that kind of argument makes me crazy.
I regularly hear designers bitch about Linux, citing the command line as an example of terrible UI. That's fucking wrong. The Unix command line ecosystem has a fantastically good UI for its audience. (Grep is my homeboy.) It's just that the audience isn't your average design school student.
There's no such thing as "good design". There's only good design for your audience. What designers often call "good design" is really "good design for lightweight consumer products".
I regularly hear designers bitch about Linux, citing the command line as an example of terrible UI. That's fucking wrong. The Unix command line ecosystem has a fantastically good UI for its audience. (Grep is my homeboy.) It's just that the audience isn't your average design school student.
There's no such thing as "good design". There's only good design for your audience. What designers often call "good design" is really "good design for lightweight consumer products".
The three big 'design' problems I have with Hacker News (including visual design and UX) are the already mentioned horizontal text problems (some threads force a horizontal scroll even on my 1920-wide monitor, which is ridiculous), the size of up/down vote arrows (particularly on mobile/small screen devices) and the "expired or unknown link" issue. Other than those three things I think the design is fine for the site's intended purpose.
> Hacker News or Stack Overflow are good examples of very successful sites that have horrible visual design.
Yeah, to my mind this is bullshit. Reddit is another oft-quoted "horrible" design. Yahoo, msn also. It almost seems as if all the most popular sites on the planet are "horribly designed". Almost by definition this can't be true.
Personally I find both HN and SO great in terms of design. They're extremely easy to navigate, functionality and calls-to-action are clear and obvious. Data is presented in a meaningful and easy-to-read uncluttered manor. I'm not a design student (by any stretch of the imagination) but for the life of me I wouldn't be able to begin to guess what's so bad about either of these sites, unless it's the lack of super-whizzy glossy css3/js/ajax/flash magic that's the problem. Which is absurd, and only really relevant for "creatives".
Disclosure: I didn't read the article, so if it states why they're so bad I've missed out!
Yeah, to my mind this is bullshit. Reddit is another oft-quoted "horrible" design. Yahoo, msn also. It almost seems as if all the most popular sites on the planet are "horribly designed". Almost by definition this can't be true.
Personally I find both HN and SO great in terms of design. They're extremely easy to navigate, functionality and calls-to-action are clear and obvious. Data is presented in a meaningful and easy-to-read uncluttered manor. I'm not a design student (by any stretch of the imagination) but for the life of me I wouldn't be able to begin to guess what's so bad about either of these sites, unless it's the lack of super-whizzy glossy css3/js/ajax/flash magic that's the problem. Which is absurd, and only really relevant for "creatives".
Disclosure: I didn't read the article, so if it states why they're so bad I've missed out!
it's important not to have BAD design. It's not important to have THE BEST design
Despite the articles attempt not to it ends up talking about style more than anything else.
Design is about finding the solution to a problem. Once you find a solution you can then apply a style to that solution
Does design matter for startups?
Yes always
Does style matter?
Rarely but still sometimes
Design is about finding the solution to a problem. Once you find a solution you can then apply a style to that solution
Does design matter for startups?
Yes always
Does style matter?
Rarely but still sometimes
[deleted]
There are a lot of cases where design does not matter. For example, if your software works without a GUI or even no user interface whatsoever.
Now of course you could argue that even a programming language is "designed", but that's clearly a different kind of design. You have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise "design" can pretty much be anything you want.
Now of course you could argue that even a programming language is "designed", but that's clearly a different kind of design. You have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise "design" can pretty much be anything you want.
I am not sure what you mean with that.
I would say that it matters quite a lot whether your software works without a GUI or even no interface whatsoever.
In any case you cannot not, design software.
Design _is_ almost anything you want and I find it more important to realize that than to try and draw lines somewhere.
I know brilliant software designers who can't draw a straight line but are excellent developers and have an excellent understanding of what it takes.
I would say that it matters quite a lot whether your software works without a GUI or even no interface whatsoever.
In any case you cannot not, design software.
Design _is_ almost anything you want and I find it more important to realize that than to try and draw lines somewhere.
I know brilliant software designers who can't draw a straight line but are excellent developers and have an excellent understanding of what it takes.
If design is anything you want it to be, then I don't really see the point of talking about it.
Maybe you were not commenting on the article but just making a point. If that's the case I apologize. But my post was specifically talking about the kind of design that you would hire a web designer to do, so in this case the line is pretty clearly drawn.
Maybe you were not commenting on the article but just making a point. If that's the case I apologize. But my post was specifically talking about the kind of design that you would hire a web designer to do, so in this case the line is pretty clearly drawn.
I would hire a web designer for many things, product design wouldn't necessarily be one of them.
Again you are taking a small subpart of design and trying to make it the de facto standard of design. It's not.
Even if we where to use that subpart even within "web-design" there is a style component and a problem solving component just as there is a communication component.
Even if you design a CLI you are designing. It's pretty important what type you use, what colors you use and so one. Not for style purpose but for actual usefulness of the interface.
Again you are taking a small subpart of design and trying to make it the de facto standard of design. It's not.
Even if we where to use that subpart even within "web-design" there is a style component and a problem solving component just as there is a communication component.
Even if you design a CLI you are designing. It's pretty important what type you use, what colors you use and so one. Not for style purpose but for actual usefulness of the interface.
Design isn't anything you want it to be, but it certainly includes programming language design. It includes API design. Any situation where you are creating an experience for a human you are doing design.
HN and Stack Overflow I view as tools, utilities that don't require branding to draw in their audience. The brand is directly connected to the quality of content.
Now for the web as a whole, good design definitely makes a difference, even if it doesn't affect conversion rate. At that point, look at your content.
Now for the web as a whole, good design definitely makes a difference, even if it doesn't affect conversion rate. At that point, look at your content.
Big mistake here... a huge one actually... HN and Stack Overflow have the _right_ kind of design because in one way or another it appeals to readers. Author is clearly not a tech guy, he doesn't understand that appeal and lightheartedly makes a very misleading statement.
If you are working on your startup think what "sort" of design you should have first. Imagine if Graham would make HN in fashion website style and vice versa.
If you are working on your startup think what "sort" of design you should have first. Imagine if Graham would make HN in fashion website style and vice versa.
Clearly what appeals to users on HN and SO is the content, not the design. Just because both sites are successful with their current visual design doesn't mean that they wouldn't be even more successful with a better style.
And yes, I'm not a tech guy, I'm a designer. Which is why I'm writing about design, and not tech.
And yes, I'm not a tech guy, I'm a designer. Which is why I'm writing about design, and not tech.
Content is always king. Both engineering and design makes no sense without content (in most cases).Design and engineering are ways to work with content.
Design is how the cup looks, and more importantly feels in your hand. Engineering is making sure the cup don't fall apart, keeps the cofee in the cup and don't leak. The coffe is the content.
Design is how the cup looks, and more importantly feels in your hand. Engineering is making sure the cup don't fall apart, keeps the cofee in the cup and don't leak. The coffe is the content.
But what you are saying is - let's just have "some design". Like nice background pattern or smth. Sorry but I so disagree with this. In case of mentioned sites it would be a major fail. And btw I'm a designer too...
Stack Overflow has excellent visual design. It serves the application's function and audience faithfully. Reducing visual design to "does it look pretty?" is insulting his own profession. In this case I suspect it was the result of separating web design into a number of arbitrary sections to bulk out a blog post.
This articles seems based on a misunderstanding that design is only about looking good.
I would actually say Hacker News and Stack Overflow have very good design. They have design that meets the goals of the sites. That is what design is, meeting the goals of your product.
Sure, design can look good, but looking good is only one part of design. It’s not all of design.
I would actually say Hacker News and Stack Overflow have very good design. They have design that meets the goals of the sites. That is what design is, meeting the goals of your product.
Sure, design can look good, but looking good is only one part of design. It’s not all of design.
Users are more likely to trust a well designed site.