Henk van de Goor — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:42 GMT

I DO agree with the basic message in the story. I have been in the web-business since ‘95 and I have seen a lot of examples were even ugly looking websites were able to get a large and loyal audience.

It just depends on what is on the website and how usefull it is and if there is any alternative.

Example: back in ‘95 my company developed the website for the Dutch stock exchange in Amsterdam.

For some reason the designers used a totally abstract navigation using purple cones and red squares etc. Totally confusing..

Despite this, the website was a great succes. The reason? It was the only Dutch website at that time that had semi-realtime (15 minutes delay) stock quotes.

People just put up with the weird and bad interaction design and instead just focused on the content they came on.

Even now I see examples of totally crappy websites (both by usability, interaction and design standards) that still are a huge succes.

Somehow they seem to cater to expectations users have inspite of the opinions of the experts.

I think the way websites are developing have an analogy with the development of cars: the shape of cars in general are hugely influenced by wind tunnels (to get the best wind coefficient factor). There is a certain shape that is optimal for cars. Hence: a lot of cars look alike.

The same thing applies to websites: navigation is usually found on the top or the left side of the screen (well, for European/American sites).

Placing a navigation the rigfht side is not done that often (remember: the windtunnel dictates the shape).

Also, do not forget the power of the word over a graphic.

It is often said that a photo tells more than a thousand words. Well, I think the opposite is true too.

Just take a look at this word:

“SPRING”

I’m quit sure a lot of images go through your head just by reading it. If you would try to capture that feeling in an image you will find that it is more difficult to find an image that everyone associates with ‘spring’ whereas the word itself is more meaningfull.

Last but not least: even ‘bad tast’ is a form of taste. (And there is no defense against it)..

So I agree for 90% on this subject. The other 10% of me still hopes that what we all learned about webdesign is still valid.

Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Henk van de Goor