A few good questions were raised at this panel, mostly about aesthetics and emotional responses to design on the web. Mark Boulton proposed that we aren’t doing enough to evoke an emotional response from our audience. Many people didn’t quite agree, but I’m inclined to think that there is a lot that we could to to streamline the messages our websites send.
It seems in today’s internet most websites suffer from multiple personality disorder: trying to accomplish the goals of each constituency involved in their creation. The result is a confusing, emotionless message, regardless of aesthetics. We need to focus on concrete goals, and design around those with purpose.
A member of the audience challenged the panel to consider their definition of emotional response given that there are sites, like eBay, that have a very loyal following in spite of poor ‘design’ or aesthetics. I tend to agree that aesthetics are not the only part of a website that tell us if it is designed well, or designed usefully. I do, however, believe that aesthetics are a key part of the user experience, and if you compared two websites with exactly the same function, people would choose to use the one that ‘looked better.’ What do you think?
Having not seen or heard the presentation, personally, I would probably pick the site that looked better, as long as it is providing the same function as the ‘not so good looking’ one. If it was a case where the less aesthetic one provided more of the features that I need then I would be more inclined to go for that one, though there might be a bit of a pull in my mind for the pretty one.
I pick the one that looks better. Any product from 37Signals, for example, or Ma.gnolia over Del.icio.us.
I have to slightly disagree with you and say that perhaps even foolishly we often see people who will choose to love and adore a website based on more than just looks, sometimes even despite the looks. They don’t always choose based on well executed design or even usability either, I’m suggesting some form of peer pressure here, and we see it everywhere we turn. If a group or community deems a website to be generally accepted and understood by it’s members / peers, they’ll roll with it. Look at myspace, there are quite a few examples of hideous web design there, but that’s what language these kids happen to be speaking, it’s easy for them to grasp, they’re too young to care about design and they want what works and is deemed to be “the shit” by those around them who matter the most to them, their peers. So I’m thinking as an example, that we might be surprised with what the typical user of myspace would choose if given the choice between what we deem as a “better looking” myspace versus their current kid tested and molestor approved myspace.
People who are sensitive to design or who went through design school can appreciate the design element in a website more than others.
Appreciating design its like being into wine, you twirl it around and hold it up to the light before drinking it.
Some people just want to get drunk though.