Hi,
I am about to launch a new site addressed mainly to teenagers. As I like nice visual "look and feel" sites, I usually spend lot of time on this issue, compared with i.e. programming, etc. This effort usually ends up delaying an almost ready to launch site (from the development point of view).
Do you think that nice visual designed sites are appreciated by most people (specially young people) or it is a secondary issue?.
I am asking this question because I am starting to think that nice designs are only appreciated by designers and not for the average user.
I'm a borderline young person, so I guess I can comment. Good aesthetics and good content seem circular. If a site looks good, I'm probably more inclined to look around, bookmark it, or contribute to the content. Conversely, if the content's good on its own, that might give it the popularity that spurs some visual improvement. A lot of popular sites weren't particularly pretty when they launched/grew (take Facebook), and some still aren't. But if it's a user-driven site, people might be less inclined to contribute information or come back in the first place if its ugly. So, I generally try not to separate the two in my own work. Form and function follow each other around.
I love good design, but I've noticed recently that many people don't care that much. The company I'm freelancing for keeps buying programs which look like they were designed by a monkey (eg, clipart icons, garish colours, poor alignment of elements, graphics literally done in MS Paint) and nobody except me seems to give a damn. If your product is a good one, don't sweat the design too much. If people use it and like it, you can enhance the design later.
Visual design is a key, integral part of "look and feel" and usability. I would argue that even if you ask your users and they tell you they don't care about the aesthetics, they actually are influenced at some level by them. People (including me) are more likely to continue to use and contribute to a well-designed and attractive site.
The thesis is that if you present people with two [websites, machines, etc] that function identically but one is beautiful, people will be measurably better at using the pretty one, and they'll enjoy the experience more too.
I think there are examples on both sides that are successful. The iPod is fantastic design. Myspace is absolutely hideous design.
Great examples.
I think functionality overrides appearance, at least until competition steps in. Reddit and YC are examples of spartan design but great loyalty among readers young and old. It's the idea and the execution first followed by the quality of design.
We see it all the time: small company comes up with cool product but not-so-cool packaging/marketing. Once they become successful, they hire people who make their packaging/marketing as good as the product.
I guess I fall on the side of "Product First, Marketing Second." It could be that a great website design is more about marketing than product but I don't know.
I think there are examples on both sides that are successful. The iPod is fantastic design. Myspace is absolutely hideous design.
I think the younger you are, the more willing you are to want to customize something to express yourself and personalize the experience (some of the younger generation would put stickers on their iPods).
The older you are, the less apt to want to bother you are: you want it to just work, and you don't have time to customize every little thing.