Your website is not for you • Hacker News Board

Re: Your website is not for you

#201

Post by cybercatgurrl » Mon, May 04, 2026, 2:53 AM UTC

xyzelement wrote: post #28

The only problem with this analysis is that in practice a lot of the designers don't understand the customer and don't understand the business. Don't understand the market, at least compared to the founders or people who've been in the space for a long time. So there's a bit of a false confidence where the designers think they know what's really right because they did "scientific approach". But in reality the founder…

a designer can still make a terrible UI if they have no understanding of UX. in fact the worst UX with a UI i’ve ever seen have come from professional designers and not amateurs

Re: Your website is not for you

#202

Post by cybercatgurrl » Mon, May 04, 2026, 2:57 AM UTC

chongli wrote: post #128

tqwhite wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"in practice"? Disrespectful, of course, but also not true. In practice, most designers know what they are doing as well as you know your job. If yours doesn't, you hired a quack. Here. Try this, in practice, most business owners don't know what they are doing. In practice, most programmers write shit. It's easy to bitch at artists because most people don't understand what they do. Don't be one of those people.

In practice, most designers know what they are doing as well as you know your job I would qualify that as most graphic designers know what they’re doing, when they’re working in graphic design media: logos, magazines, billboards, and other print media. Unfortunately, our industry (software) has shifted towards hiring graphic designers to do user interface design, a task which they’re often grossly unqualified for. Th…

if you’re hiring a graphic designer without UX experience to do a UI then you’re hiring the wrong person and your end product will be hated by your userbase

Re: Your website is not for you

#203

Post by cybercatgurrl » Mon, May 04, 2026, 3:06 AM UTC

almostarockstar wrote: post #42

xyzelement wrote: post #28

The only problem with this analysis is that in practice a lot of the designers don't understand the customer and don't understand the business. Don't understand the market, at least compared to the founders or people who've been in the space for a long time. So there's a bit of a false confidence where the designers think they know what's really right because they did "scientific approach". But in reality the founder…

100%. Ignoring the fact that sometimes founders feel the need to put their stamp on everything, for startups and scaleups that haven't progressed to corporate slog, I think it's near impossible for even the best staff designer in the world to arrive at the optimum website/deck/infographic/widget without founder or leader feedback. The key ingredient is their insight. That's what sets any startup apart. Otherwise the…

i would much rather work under a designer founder with someone who understands their domain than just about anyone else

Re: Your website is not for you

#204

Post by cybercatgurrl » Mon, May 04, 2026, 3:12 AM UTC

jdw64 wrote: post #11

A website is a compromise between three parties. User: I want to get the information I came for. Business: I want to build brand trust and drive conversion. Internal organization: I want the owner’s taste and preferences to be reflected. The article strongly says that a website is for the user. I agree with the spirit of that argument, but in practice, most users’ “taste” is shaped by brand reputation. And where does…

yea and you get a shit UX as a result. arrogance does not make a good product and your customers can feel it in their gut

Re: Your website is not for you

#205

Post by bisby » Wed, May 06, 2026, 6:03 PM UTC

satvikpendem wrote: post #175

bisby wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

_should be_ for your customers. Business minded folk can convince themselves that "ads are for the consumer because they benefit from knowing about our great deals!" but everyone else knows that ads are for the business to increase revenue. If they didn't increase revenue, the business wouldn't do it. If your website provides an actual utility, then that utility is for the customers. Everything else on the site (upse…

They increase revenue by...getting customers. Therefore everything on the site is for the customer, in terms of acquiring them.

I was merely trying to convey that when I go to a restaurant website, I want to: see the menu, make a reservation, see hours. There is a specific list of reasons I would go to your restaurant website. It is utility that serves me.

If I go to your restaurant's website and have to dig to find the menu and the page is just plastered with "Fine dining with a wonderful view" and pictures of models eating... that's not helping me, that's advertising to me. And now your website is no longer a utility/service, it is a billboard. The only reason I tolerate the billboard is because of the utility, and if the utility doesnt exist, why would I ever come back.

Re: Your website is not for you

#206

Post by bicepjai » Fri, May 08, 2026, 6:23 PM UTC

filleduchaos wrote: post #162

bicepjai wrote: post #157

My personal website is absolutely for me and not anyone else :) It’s like saying the art I made is not for me !!!?

What part of the article gave you the impression that it was about your personal website?

Sometimes sarcasm doesn’t always land in public forums, and this is a good example. You are right, the post is not about a personal website, and I was trying to make a funny argument.

Re: Your website is not for you

#207

Post by nathans1975 » Tue, May 12, 2026, 10:27 AM UTC

xyzelement wrote: post #28

The only problem with this analysis is that in practice a lot of the designers don't understand the customer and don't understand the business. Don't understand the market, at least compared to the founders or people who've been in the space for a long time. So there's a bit of a false confidence where the designers think they know what's really right because they did "scientific approach". But in reality the founder…

[flagged]