Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Crappy website design seems more trustworthy?

news.ycombinator.com

1–10 of 24 posts

Re: Ask HN: Crappy website design seems more trustworthy?

#3
We're trained to assume that the prettier things are implemented by entities that care more for the pretty than the function the thing was supposed to preform.

Uglier, less decorated things are expected to function better, with less effort "wasted" on goals unrelated to the problem being solved.

Re: Ask HN: Crappy website design seems more trustworthy?

#4
I know that in general, the flashier a thing is -- that is, the more obvious effort that has been put into a thing's aesthetics -- the less likely that thing is to be great.

My hypothesis is it's because time and money investment was put into aesthetics at the expense of making the product or service better.

Re: Ask HN: Crappy website design seems more trustworthy?

#5
It is possible to have both great content and great design, but it's rare. Think of the Met museum website vs a tech startup. Both will have modern, fancy UIs, but the museum also has real information where the marketing site will only have design elements and simple hype statements.

That said, you probably want to judge your bank's trustworthiness by it's rating with the Federal government, which is public info. Most banks (all but the biggest) have to outsource their online banking software and it's never as slick as the big guys'.

Re: Ask HN: Crappy website design seems more trustworthy?

#9
post #4

I know that in general, the flashier a thing is -- that is, the more obvious effort that has been put into a thing's aesthetics -- the less likely that thing is to be great. My hypothesis is it's because time and money investment was put into aesthetics at the expense of making the product or service better.

Is this true in general? I’ve had the opposite experience. I’d love to see some data if you have any.

Re: Ask HN: Crappy website design seems more trustworthy?

#10
post #9
post #4

I know that in general, the flashier a thing is -- that is, the more obvious effort that has been put into a thing's aesthetics -- the less likely that thing is to be great. My hypothesis is it's because time and money investment was put into aesthetics at the expense of making the product or service better.

Is this true in general? I’ve had the opposite experience. I’d love to see some data if you have any.

Whether it's true or not, it's definitely a rule I follow for many situations. If a restaurant has loud signage in a busy area, sometimes literally flashing, it ain't gunna be good. Most new websites try to fill negative space with unsubstantial bullshit
Post reply on HN