Social networks, such as MySpace and Friendster, outsource graphic designing to the users by letting them alter the source code. A user who spends two hours customizing their profile is likely to become more loyal than he or she would've been two hours earlier.
Of course, the side effect is that the site turns out to be chaotic; though, it does leave the user with a more personalized experience. Humans have a tendency to prefer choice when given the freedom to do so. And as it turns out, they are not very good at it.
To me the interesting sites are those the author would call ugly by design (i.e, not the ones that are ugly because there was no money to hire a designer, or because the programmer thought he was a designer.)
But with those, I think bueno misses the point: these sites represent the edge of design. They are designers trying to create something unique, trying to find a spark. When successful, it's usually a small crowd that "gets it": they're passionate about it while many, maybe even a majority, hate it. If it's truly good, eventually the majority gets converted. I'm in the majority with the Honda Element, for example: to my shock I'm beginning to come around.
Most edge design, though, IS ugly, will gain only hedging admiration from the designer's mother and averted gazes from his wife. But it's not intended to be bad, it's intended to be revolutionary.
I didn't mean to suggest that there are no programmers who can do good design -- I'm sure there are many. I suspect that most programmers (like most bus drivers, or most doctors) aren't good designers, though. But unlike bus drivers or doctors, programmers are often pressed into design work: sometimes by their boss, sometimes by their ego. :)
Broad appeal and psychological acceptance seems to have a direct relationship with poor design, doesn't it? It's one of those things that make you ponder.
It's undeniable that Virb is more beautiful than MySpace. But it seems to me that superior design has that subtle hint of self-importance that becomes a tougher sell over a modest offering.
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.
Popular 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?
Yeah 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.
Of course, the side effect is that the site turns out to be chaotic; though, it does leave the user with a more personalized experience. Humans have a tendency to prefer choice when given the freedom to do so. And as it turns out, they are not very good at it.