Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

All Websites Look the Same

novolume.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#41

Post by exodust »

visakanv wrote: post #30
dpcan wrote: post #15

I could not disagree more. Don't fix what isn't broken (anymore). I believe that after years of designing websites, we found something that works, and works well. Consumers land on sites and see something familiar. It makes for a comfortable and easier web. I'm all for this "standard" in web design.

Yep. This is like someone saying "all pop songs sound the same". Yup, they do, and because they're meant to be accessible. The consumer doesn't always want to be challenged. See "Don't Make Me Think". A familiar design allows us to focus on the content, not the delivery. There are exceptions, of course. Iron Maiden's website is dark and epic, as it should be. They're a metal band. But if I'm going to be buying softwa…

It's sad that you're suggesting that a good accessible intuitive website needs to follow a specific design recipe or else doomed.

If I'm going to buy software from a website, what matters is quality information architecture and UX, which could be presented in any number of ways.

"Don't make me think"... next you'll be wanting all your restaurant menus to follow the McDonald's menu style guide.

"Thinking" doesn't need to be an annoyance. Promoting "you don't need to think" might even backfire. You're ignoring the benefits of standing out as unique. Leaving a lasting impression however small, can be the difference between earning respect or being seen as playing it safe and therefore a clone in the consumer's eyes. Clones are expendable.

It's a fine line, a balancing act that sorts the confident websites out from the copycat yawn-fests. Take the risk I say, but it's a philosophical difference.

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#42

Post by unicornporn »

Aaand... Looking at their landing page[1] I can see they've chosen to go with a horizontal page layout. Because they use a non standard page layout they have a black stripe bumping in and out of the viewport instructing the user that they can/should scroll. This is quite a common layout among artsy portfolio themes[2].

Has anyone ever tried to sidescroll a web page lately? On my Yosemite MBP with latest Firefox/Chromium I just get a jitter and no movement. Sometimes the scrollbar moves in the wrong the direction and then dies.

Moral: what is tried and tested usually works very well.

[1] http://www.novolume.co.uk/

[2] http://demo.koken.me/#boulevard

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#43

Post by foundart »

21echoes wrote: post #4

(Most) all websites should look the same. Most browsers look the same. Most car dashes look the same. Most newspapers look the same. Most books look the same. The web is not art. At least, not most of the time. Websites should only look markedly different with good reason. For most clients, there is not a good reason.

This makes a lot of sense. To address a comment or two: It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to imagine that 21echoes' proposal includes the concept that websites of a similar nature should resemble each other rather than that all websites should look alike.

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#44

Post by kalleboo »

unicornporn wrote: post #42

Aaand... Looking at their landing page[1] I can see they've chosen to go with a horizontal page layout. Because they use a non standard page layout they have a black stripe bumping in and out of the viewport instructing the user that they can/should scroll. This is quite a common layout among artsy portfolio themes[2]. Has anyone ever tried to sidescroll a web page lately? On my Yosemite MBP with latest Firefox/Chrom…

> On my Yosemite MBP with latest Firefox/Chromium I just get a jitter and no movement

So turns out you have to scroll up/down to get it to scroll left/right. That makes total sense. And the speed is way off so the first time I tried it it just flicked straight to the end...

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#45

Post by notahacker »

jib wrote: post #26
pun_Krawk wrote: post #10

I take issue with the current 'standard' design, but only indirectly. I feel like giant home screens give companies the freedom to create a great looking webpage without any actual content - like a giant landing page. Since they all look the same, it's easy to compare and contrast. I can recall a number of times scrolling through the entire home page for a company, only to still be confused about what the product act…

Finding out what they do is a fairly unusual need though, right? When I look up a company website (rarely) I'm not looking to find out what they do, typically. My use cases are something like: I want to order something, I want info on a specific product they sell, I want support for something that has gone wrong, or rarely I may be looking for info on working there. I typically know what they do before going to their…

In fairness though, whilst people's needs when visiting a company homepage vary, they're almost never "admire almost-full-screen header image, read bullet points beneath 3 icons selected more for layout purposes than because they convey the most useful information" which is what the design trend discussed in the article optimises for.

A side effect of the current design trend is that navigating to a specific piece of information, or seeing what's changed usually takes another click or a lot more scrolling precisely because the actual products and support contacts are relegated to a lower priority than the full screen "We make software (and have good taste in stock photos)" message.

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#46

Post by tikhonj »

onion2k wrote: post #27
dpcan wrote: post #15

I could not disagree more. Don't fix what isn't broken (anymore). I believe that after years of designing websites, we found something that works, and works well. Consumers land on sites and see something familiar. It makes for a comfortable and easier web. I'm all for this "standard" in web design.

Just like we didn't need to fix the infinite-scrolling-homepage before it, or the top-navigation-with-drop-downs design before that , or the left-side-navigation-fixed-width design before that, or the fluid-width-with-header-and-two-sidebars before that. The current design trend is exactly that - a trend . Something else will replace it in a year or two. The current state-of-the-art full screen background image site…

Testing is great, but tends to involve small local modifications. It'll get you a site that looks the same in a different way, but won't help if you want something a bit different.

Even if people did run tests on significant redesigns, I suspect results would be dominated by methodological issues and a lack of power, leading to little more than noise.

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#47

Post by pascalmahe »

exodust wrote: post #41
visakanv wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. This is like someone saying "all pop songs sound the same". Yup, they do, and because they're meant to be accessible. The consumer doesn't always want to be challenged. See "Don't Make Me Think". A familiar design allows us to focus on the content, not the delivery. There are exceptions, of course. Iron Maiden's website is dark and epic, as it should be. They're a metal band. But if I'm going to be buying softwa…

It's sad that you're suggesting that a good accessible intuitive website needs to follow a specific design recipe or else doomed. If I'm going to buy software from a website, what matters is quality information architecture and UX, which could be presented in any number of ways. "Don't make me think"... next you'll be wanting all your restaurant menus to follow the McDonald's menu style guide. "Thinking" doesn't need…

(Basing my comment on Kathy Sierra's post : Your app makes me fat[1].)

The idea is that the user is not on your site to get your ideas about web design but to get specific information. If that info is hard to find, they'll get out and try the next site. Concentrate on making your content memorable rather than your UI.

[1] http://seriouspony.com/blog/2013/7/24/your-app-makes-me-fat

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#48

Post by wingerlang »

exodust wrote: post #38
21echoes wrote: post #4

(Most) all websites should look the same. Most browsers look the same. Most car dashes look the same. Most newspapers look the same. Most books look the same. The web is not art. At least, not most of the time. Websites should only look markedly different with good reason. For most clients, there is not a good reason.

> "Most car dashes look the same"... Not sure what cars you've been driving, but search for 'car dash' on google images and bask in the differences. Saying that all websites should look the same might be reasonable when you're talking about one network or brand, but outside of that, creativity should be explored, encouraged and rewarded. Who wants a world with every restaurant, bar, urban design or any design looking…

> Not sure what cars you've been driving, but search for 'car dash' on google images and bask in the differences.

They are all minor/semi-major style differences. But in the end they all have a round wheel, some buttons in the middle and some form of RPM+speed meters.

Definitely wouldn't say I am basking in differences.

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#49

Post by jpswade »

>At times I think back to when websites were produced in Flash. For all its downfalls (and there were a lot) one thing was always true. Flash sites rarely looked the same.

This is the take away line. There's a reason why we now have beautiful looking websites to a fairly uniform standard and that after the 2000s, the usage of Flash on Web sites declined.

The fact that "all websites look the same" should be celebrated in as much that we've found a formula that is practical for consuming content and for the most part, works.

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#50

Post by awjr »

The designer seems to be harking back to a time when pretty much the only browser was one on a laptop and you could reliably assume 764pixel width.

These days, you have no idea what is browsing your website and more than likely it is somebody on a phone. So priorities change.

Content makers want their message in front of as many people as possible. To achieve this, you make it work on a small screen. This brings good design constraints and stops design for the sake of design.

Post reply on HN