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

Ask HN: All startup websites look the same

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 88 posts

Re: Ask HN: All startup websites look the same

#31

Post by [deleted] »

phugoid wrote: post #30
jmtame wrote: post #22

i was one of the designers on loopt.com, and the reason i think most of these sites look the same is because we all go through y combinator hearing the same thing: "the number one enemy is the back button." we just don't have time to overload the home pages with too much stuff if we intend on someone doing something while they're on it. so i think all styles gravitate towards a similar highly-focused product-oriented…

That's what I was looking for. I was hoping the conversation would bring up some new approach or tech. This is the first I hear of CSS grid frameworks - I must look into them further. Edit: By the way, your site looks great to me. I was trying to get at the thinking behind these designs, not to criticize.

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: All startup websites look the same

#32

Post by kmfrk »

Familiar designs that people don't have to learn all over again means that people will focus on the only thing that is different between the sites, which, to me, is great with start-ups who are still struggling with explaining their product.

Experimental designs are for start-ups with traction.

Re: Ask HN: All startup websites look the same

#33

Post by lovskogen »

jdietrich wrote: post #27

The important stuff in the common design pattern has been tested to death - everyone who matters is using clicktracking, a/b/x testing and deep user analytics. The reason they all look the same is the same reason that all infomercials or porn sites use the same basic structure - that's what testing indicates will convert best. Some people know this empirically, some are just blindly aping the fashion, but there is wa…

A lot of people will hit The Back Button if you don't use a sans serif font? Come on.

Re: Ask HN: All startup websites look the same

#34

Post by DrJokepu »

jdietrich wrote: post #27

The important stuff in the common design pattern has been tested to death - everyone who matters is using clicktracking, a/b/x testing and deep user analytics. The reason they all look the same is the same reason that all infomercials or porn sites use the same basic structure - that's what testing indicates will convert best. Some people know this empirically, some are just blindly aping the fashion, but there is wa…

As a minor footnote, sans serif DOES NOT improve readability. That's a myth. A nice serif typeface such as Baskerville is just as readable as Helvetica & friends.

Re: Ask HN: All startup websites look the same

#35

Post by _urga »

panacea wrote: post #15
phugoid wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the definition of good UI is arbitrary. The folks who designed those old amber IBM terminals (that I still use at work) would have argued that: - Black background is easy on the eyes. - The flashing cursor draws your focus. - The amazing bold font technology breaks up the page very nicely. So it would appear that "good design" is just a function of the technology available.

Good design is about form following function, and is very dependent on the technology available, you're right. It's not arbitrary however. Here are some essentially inviolate principles of good design: http://graphicdesign.spokanefalls.edu/tutorials/process/gest...

There is no such thing as form. There is only function. Function follows function. Function informs function. So that what we see is a fractal of function, a function of function.

Re: Ask HN: All startup websites look the same

#36

Post by [deleted] »

jmtame wrote: post #26
pvg wrote: post #17

There's fashion in everything from fashion, through web design to science. I think the clean, sans-serify, widely spaced design grew to prominence in part as a reaction to busy, link-heavy corporate/portal sites and for a time it looked friendly, clean and simple. Now it's so common it manages to also look generic and corporate. The visual design has also become a bit a bit of a habit, at the expense of usability. It…

i think this is an apples to oranges comparison. i don't know for sure, but flightcaster is probably only building one product for a couple of mobile devices. loopt on the other hand has been around for a while and has 4 different products (loopt, star, pulse, mix). each one has a different purpose, serves different markets, and pairs up with different devices. you can imagine where the challenge is at: you have 4 th…

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: All startup websites look the same

#37

Post by pvg »

jmtame wrote: post #26
pvg wrote: post #17

There's fashion in everything from fashion, through web design to science. I think the clean, sans-serify, widely spaced design grew to prominence in part as a reaction to busy, link-heavy corporate/portal sites and for a time it looked friendly, clean and simple. Now it's so common it manages to also look generic and corporate. The visual design has also become a bit a bit of a habit, at the expense of usability. It…

i think this is an apples to oranges comparison. i don't know for sure, but flightcaster is probably only building one product for a couple of mobile devices. loopt on the other hand has been around for a while and has 4 different products (loopt, star, pulse, mix). each one has a different purpose, serves different markets, and pairs up with different devices. you can imagine where the challenge is at: you have 4 th…

This may be true but I'm not sure it really excuses 'incomprehensible front page'. As you say "loopt on the other hand has been around for a while and has 4 different products (loopt, star, pulse, mix). each one has a different purpose". What on earth do these things mean, what are their purposes, etc, etc. There's no telling from their (wonderfully minimalist) front page.

it's an interesting problem when people who aren't aware of your various apps fail to understand fundamentally what your company does.

I tend to think this is 'they failed to explain what they are'. If you're blaming the victim it's not an interesting problem, it's just a problem.

Re: Ask HN: All startup websites look the same

#38

Post by Luyt »

DrJokepu wrote: post #34
jdietrich wrote: post #27

The important stuff in the common design pattern has been tested to death - everyone who matters is using clicktracking, a/b/x testing and deep user analytics. The reason they all look the same is the same reason that all infomercials or porn sites use the same basic structure - that's what testing indicates will convert best. Some people know this empirically, some are just blindly aping the fashion, but there is wa…

As a minor footnote, sans serif DOES NOT improve readability. That's a myth. A nice serif typeface such as Baskerville is just as readable as Helvetica & friends.

On paper, serifs can be printed with enough resolution to aid in readability. On screens however, serifs are rendered too coarse and distract. That's why with current screen resolutions, sans serif works better for screen type.

Re: Ask HN: All startup websites look the same

#39

Post by RossM »

Luyt wrote: post #38
DrJokepu wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a minor footnote, sans serif DOES NOT improve readability. That's a myth. A nice serif typeface such as Baskerville is just as readable as Helvetica & friends.

On paper, serifs can be printed with enough resolution to aid in readability. On screens however, serifs are rendered too coarse and distract. That's why with current screen resolutions, sans serif works better for screen type.

I find serif's easier to read if they're large enough (Readability does it right I think, fairly large serif text).

Re: Ask HN: All startup websites look the same

#40

Post by DrJokepu »

Luyt wrote: post #38
DrJokepu wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a minor footnote, sans serif DOES NOT improve readability. That's a myth. A nice serif typeface such as Baskerville is just as readable as Helvetica & friends.

On paper, serifs can be printed with enough resolution to aid in readability. On screens however, serifs are rendered too coarse and distract. That's why with current screen resolutions, sans serif works better for screen type.

I stand by my assertion that this is a myth. Maybe for small font sizes it matters, but on modern displays, on medium font sizes, in the age of sub-pixel rendering, it shouldn't.
Post reply on HN