People instantly decide whether to trust a product based on design • Hacker News Board

Re: People instantly decide whether to trust a product based on design

#41

Post by ikr678 » Sun, Jun 22, 2025, 2:46 PM UTC

mrob wrote: post #21

I trust software more if it's ugly. Desktop software interfaces were pretty much solved by the late 90s. The majority of changes since then have been aimed at either dumbing down the software to better appeal to people who are easily manipulated and exploited, or just change for the sake of change so designers can justify their jobs. And I choose to avoid mobile devices because every one of them is slow and frustrati…

Me too, but there is a hint of survivorship bias here. I trust most of the ugly software I am still using because it was designed well enough in the ugly era to survive til today.

I have largelyforgotten all the bad ugly software.

Re: People instantly decide whether to trust a product based on design

#42

Post by SZJX » Tue, Jun 24, 2025, 11:24 AM UTC

mrob wrote: post #21

I trust software more if it's ugly. Desktop software interfaces were pretty much solved by the late 90s. The majority of changes since then have been aimed at either dumbing down the software to better appeal to people who are easily manipulated and exploited, or just change for the sake of change so designers can justify their jobs. And I choose to avoid mobile devices because every one of them is slow and frustrati…

That doesn't seem to be talking about exactly the same point as the article is focusing on though.

Re: People instantly decide whether to trust a product based on design

#43

Post by SZJX » Tue, Jun 24, 2025, 11:27 AM UTC

karmakaze wrote: post #32

> “If they couldn’t be bothered to align the text, what else did they overlook?” But a clean, coherent layout creates harmony. It shows someone cared. And that care is contagious. It makes the user care too. It may only show that they cared enough to fool you into thinking the product is good. Good design can be hijacked to be a fake proxy for a good product. It's basically fruits and vegetables that look good to sel…

That's a similar thing to clothing though. You may argue how it can be manipulated all you want, but people do think in this way and it's a socially agreed upon contract to show you care enough about the occasion and have enough respect for the other people present. No head of state shows up to a meeting in shorts and slippers for a reason.

Re: People instantly decide whether to trust a product based on design

#44

Post by SZJX » Tue, Jun 24, 2025, 11:29 AM UTC

meelford wrote: post #40

It’s the same with articles: I tend to prefer those from scientific magazines, where decoration is minimal and the authors focus on conveying meaning, rather than those that are perfectly designed on Medium or LinkedIn but, in reality, are very shallow and often outdated. Most deliberately decorated products also look over-processed.

That's the whole point of the article: It's not about "decoration", but about making the underlying UX flow make coherent sense.

Re: People instantly decide whether to trust a product based on design

#45

Post by SZJX » Tue, Jun 24, 2025, 11:32 AM UTC

It's mindblowing how the majority of the comments here seem to be rather cynical and distrustful. I'd be really discouraged if I were the author. I (as an engineer) found the article rather well-written and convincing! Well, at least it did get 100+ upvotes.

Re: People instantly decide whether to trust a product based on design

#46

Post by coyleandrew » Tue, Jul 08, 2025, 4:45 AM UTC

SZJX wrote: post #44

meelford wrote: post #40

It’s the same with articles: I tend to prefer those from scientific magazines, where decoration is minimal and the authors focus on conveying meaning, rather than those that are perfectly designed on Medium or LinkedIn but, in reality, are very shallow and often outdated. Most deliberately decorated products also look over-processed.

That's the whole point of the article: It's not about "decoration", but about making the underlying UX flow make coherent sense.

Thank you for pointing this out! I wrote the article, and that was exactly the point I was trying to make. I agree with most comments in this thread, but they're addressing a different issue. I assume they didn’t read the article in full. There’s a common frustration with designers who create superficial user interfaces—visually attractive at first glance, but offering little to the user. There's a good article on this topic called, "The dribbblisation of design."

Good design isn’t about making things pretty. It’s about making things make sense. Visual design is just one piece of that puzzle.

To reduce a designer’s role to 'making it look nice' is a fundamental misunderstanding of the craft. The shape of the interface reflects the thought behind it—ideally rooted in a deep understanding of the user’s context, goals, and jobs-to-be-done.

Thank you for reading the article!