August 18th, 2006

Ugliness, Social Design, and the MySpace Lesson

I’ve been attempting the impossible: trying to get a clear picture of the whole MySpace/Ugly issue.

But before I continue, if you haven’t seen Ze Frank’s Piece on Ugly, go watch that. In it, he says:

“Ugly when compared to pre-existing notions of taste is a bummer. But ugly as a representation of mass experimentation and learning is pretty damn cool. Regardless of what you might think, the actions you take to make your MySpace page ugly are pretty sophisticated. Over time, as consumer-created media engulfs the other kind, it’s possible that completely new norms develop around the notions of talent and artistic ability.”

In addition to Ze’s point of view there are several other viewpoints floating around. Here’s a quick summary:

MySpace succeeds despite its design
MySpace is poorly designed and succeeds despite that. It got into the social networking space early (some say first - which is entirely untrue - Friendster and others were there years before) and captured the “market” before anybody else. As a result, its design doesn’t matter, because its success depends on something else.
MySpace users just have bad taste
This assumes we can objectively judge design to some extent: that MySpace really is ugly. (I assume this in The MySpace Problem) This argument goes further, however, and suggests that those who use it must have bad taste. Do MySpace users have bad taste?
The success of design depends on whether or not it is used, and MySpace is super-used so it must be well-designed
This is the argument I want to make. It’s a difficult argument to make, however, as the visceral reaction to the ugliness of MySpace is just so strong. We so easily equate ugliness with bad design that we cannot separate usage from our own opinion, even if we aren’t the ones using it! However, if we accept that good design as that which is used, then we have to accept that MySpace is well-designed.

Many have asked: Could MySpace look better? I think that’s the wrong question. The right question is: Why does it work?

Do you think Steve Jobs says at the end of the day: “Well, our stuff is well-designed…who cares how many people use it?” Probably not. While he might not need 80% marketshare to sleep tight, he certainly needs Mac users to continue to buy Macs…there is a threshold of use that Apple needs to stay solvent. It may be only 5%, but in terms of the entire population who buys computers, 5% is a few billion dollars.

Design is All About Use

Design all about use. Most web sites exist to be used (and many to make money) and if yours doesn’t have people using it then it’s not designed well. This is not just a usability/geek way of viewing design. Many successful designers feel this way, including famous ones.

You can’t predict what people will like. I never, never, never would have been able to design MySpace, because I wasn’t in the position that Tom & Co. was in to react every day to their audience, who demonstrate over and over that they want their web pages to look like their bedrooms.

It may be that this is only a phenomenon in social networking sites. That’s OK, but we certainly can’t take the lessons we’ve learned creating other types of sites and apply them there without serious consideration.

Visual vs. Social Design

One distinction we can make is between the visual and social design of MySpace. The visual design, though it communicates what it needs to (”this is your social life”), is objectively ugly as it doesn’t follow nearly any established visual design principles like balance, symmetry, and harmony. That’s OK, as far as it goes. But the design of the social element of the site, the community aspects like the appearance of Tom as a friend in every profile, is amazing. Little touches like that make people feel right at home, as does the site’s ability to react to its audience quickly. This is great social web design. Bad visual design. Good social design.

There’s a new term: social web design. I’m using it nowadays to refer to the social aspects of design: community, persuasion, motivation, social interaction, influence, authority, etc. These things aren’t always apparent in the interface, but are just as real as a submit button. If your friend uses MySpace and uses the email widget to ask you to join, that’s a win for the design…social design.

Social aspects affect people as much, maybe more, as the interface itself. (update: Brian Fling over at Blue Flavor is having similar thoughts)

Reframing the Debate

MySpace is the ultimate site when it comes to reframing the debate in terms of user experience, usability, and most importantly what matters to users. In the world of user experience its all about figuring out what matters to users, and the MySpace example (and most of the teenage world) is a true enigma for us all. That’s why MySpace is so damn interesting…because we don’t understand it! And that’s why it’s such a good example of understanding users, because most people who do that for a living (usability folks, designers, interface hacks) have few preconceptions about the service (or negative ones) because they don’t use it, don’t understand why people do use it, and don’t want to use it. In most other applications designers have preconceived notions because they’re familiar with the domain in some way. Not so on MySpace.

However, if you can accept that MySpace is so successful because of something they have done in their design (as opposed to chance), you have to accept that they’ve done an excellent job…so far.

The MySpace Lesson

Will MySpace continue to rock? Probably not, as teenagers are as fickle as New England weather. What will MySpace have to do to stay successful? I don’t know, you don’t know, and that’s the point. They have to react, to evolve, with their audience, and the outcome probably won’t look like a “designer” would have planned. That’s the MySpace Lesson.

Grab the RSS Feed

Comments ( 58 Responses so far )

Pingback: Design Is Not About Looking Pretty at Like It Matters

1. David (Heller) Malouf on August 18th, 2006 (Comment) #

Hi Josh,
You and I have had some back and forth on this topic and I think you STILL miss the point. Your definition of “design” is incredibly off from my point of view. Design has several definitions and to use it as a catch all misses some important distinctions.

Design as noun - meaning the outcome
Design as verb - process of coming up with an outcome
Design as noun - meaning a systematic process

when thinkng about MySpace or any other successful ugly product (MySpace is by far not the first example of this, even in the internet space), you need to consider that there are many angels to design and to business success.

As said to you in a previous e-mail these criteria can occur completely outside of “design” in any form, and definitely outside of aesthetic considerations which seems to be the only aspect of design that is considered when we think of MySapce as “ugly” (something you are trying to change).

These aspects are but not limited to:
Timing - Yes, there are several aspects in regards to timing, some are “luck” based, but others are opportunity based. Finding the right time to ride a crest of a wave, is definitely a skill for many entrepeneurs and can’t be overlooked.

Market - The building market is also key here.

Contribution/Content - Well, in the real world it is all about location, but in the virtual world it is all about content. This to me is the luck piece b/c they had NO WAY of knowing that the content would come. They had trust!

Now let’s go back to your non-aesthetic idea of design that you talk about at the end of your post. Unless the makers of MySpace publisher their process for how they conceived this idea in the first place, then there is nothing to justify any support of the idea that this was an intentional design. It might be. It also might be just a creative burst of energy with the right financial backing. BOTH can lead to success, but the latter is really LUCK.

There is no information out there that has been published that I have found on this topic that suggests that MySpace was designed in the 2 senses of the Verb/Noun that matter the most.

Another point you are making is very valuable, which is why success can exist in lieu of aesthetic design. This to me goes back to the collorlary of “content, content, content”. In the web world, it is all about content and if you get it or have it or can own it outright then you win. If the usability, user experience, and aesthetics are sub-par but the content is excellent then well, people are willing to adjust their pain-thresholds.

Eric Reiss put this well when he spoke about the ROI (Return on Investment) from the user’s perspective. What is the return (the value) to a user’s investment of energy (learning, and struggling). This way of looking at this problem seems to be a lot more valuable to me than concentrating on the “ugly” factor at all. It just REALLY misses the point of UX and Design.

2. Josh on August 18th, 2006 (Comment) #

So, David…how am I using design as a catch all? I made a clear distinction between visual design and social design. I’m saying that visual design aspects of MySpace stink, and that the social design aspects are good.

I could not care less if they are unintentional…that doesn’t matter. Does it work for users? Yes.

Also, the reason why I focus on the ugly factor is that it is a critical part of design. It’s not what tips the scales in *this* case (as in most of social networking), but it does tip the scale in others (e.g. a designer’s portfolio).

3. Bill H-D on August 18th, 2006 (Comment) #

It might be interesting to consider a less polarizing example too - say, Blogger. Blogger was fascinating to me because, in 1998 or ‘99, it came along and presented users with functionality that already existed, by and large. Before blogger, folks could post things to the web, but it was pretty darn tricky and the process for most people was opaque.

Flickr is sort of the same way. When it launched, the functionality provided was not incredibily new.

What was new, and what constitutes “good design” in both cases, was the way these sites made sharing information easier. Blogger helps people write (create), not simply consume content on the web. Flickr, among other things, helps people *coordinate experience* with their friends and family who are distant from them in time and space.

The design contribution in both cases has nothing to do with incremental technical improvements, nor does it necessarily have to do with visual aesthetics. The “design” (noun) is a compelling social activity that is now dead easy to do thanks to the product.

MySpace’s design delivers a similar compelling social activity to its target user group: get famous. First it was for bands to get famous. But teens want to get famous too, so they came in. As MySpace grows and gets crowded, it may be harder for folks to use it to get famous. That’s what the designer’s should keep their eye on.

Pingback: Net Best 20 » Late breaking news

4. David H Dennis on August 18th, 2006 (Comment) #

What people are missing here is that myspace gave members of the overall public freedom to do what they wanted.

What the public wants is not what designers want. For example, a lot of architects thought the “New Urbanism”, or squeezing people into small lot housing a walkable distance from stores, was the only moral way to organize society. The overall public preferred detached suburban homes with large lots and lawns. Designers argue that this wastes gas and costs more money; the public still likes it better.

You can say all you want about people being stupid, or foolish, but what they get is what they want. The greatness of myspace is simple: It gave the public what they wanted in terms of being able to customize profiles.

I think it was not a deliberate success. I think that myspace was initially coded by a bunch of amateurs who didn’t think to prevent people from changing the look of their profiles. Then people took advantage of that, and I have an admiration for the zany wave of creativity it unleashed. It may have been vulgar and stupid, but it was creative.

Tribe.net is a very similar site that’s a lot more tasteful in its design. But it does not have the usage of myspace, because it limits your freedom and makes you design your profile basically as Tribe’s owners wanted you to do it.

What people want is not what designers want. When you give people what they want, and others don’t get the message, you can become successful despite yourself. That’s what myspace did.

Pingback: My Weblog » links for 2006-08-19

5. Brian Stanke on August 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

David H Dennis completely mischaracterizes the “New Urbanism” movement in the comment above. The only thing he got right was the aesthestic and design concerns of many of it adherants.

“New Urbanism” is not practiced everywhere (hence not popular) because it is ILLEGAL in 99% + of all cities in America. The orginal new urbanists were not archtects put developers and planners. They want the make “New Urban” or ” Traditional New Town developments” legal again. Go to any pre WWII towndwn and check main street against their zoning and parking ordinances. Main Street is probably illegal! “New” Urbanism is about making our traditional pre WWII style of town building legal again.

It is existing zoning and parking laws that force people to live a certain way. As an urban planner in a city I tell people every week they can’t do the addition to the house they want because the city demands they put my garage space on their property, no matter the price, no matter if their is no room. I hate it but that’s the twisted law and I have to enforce it. Oh yeah and new apartment buildings and condos and prohibited AT ALL in my city too, screw property right.

“New Urbanist” is about giving people a different choices, instead of forcing everyone to live in sprawl because the government decided that is what’s best for them. That is the reality for 80% of our population, sprawl enforced by law, no choices. Talk about ugly.

6. RisingSunofNihon on August 21st, 2006 (Comment) #

I am not a tech geek, so I apologize in advance if this comment comes out as naive. I have read lots of articles denouncing MySpace as ugly or whatever, but I just don’t see it??? Everyone’s page is different because users tend to personalize it. Is that what you mean by “ugly design”? Otherwise, I think the default pages are pretty normal. Nothing fancy for sure, but nothing that catches my eye as being ugly!!

7. Stephen on August 21st, 2006 (Comment) #

I wouldn’t attribute MySpace’s success to design, visual or not. It owes it’s success to the political and business end and a passable, abiet poorly built and designed website. The thing people seem to forget is that the success of a company isn’t completely tied to design and it’s possible to succeed despite poor design.

MySpace needs to adapt quickly if they want to stay relevant. MySpace seems to have no concerns for accessibility, user experince, and fail to implement standards that could save them money, time, and from the possibility of a lawsuit. They also need to open up their business more, as they’ve been cutting out third party tools that piggy-back on myspace and provide solutions to gaps in their website. The existance of these tools can only help them grow, and they they keep shutting them out.

Frankly, I don’t understand why they wouldn’t impliment all these things. With all their money they could easily improve the website. Perhaps they’ve dug themselves into a hole and it will costs them dearly to dig themselves out so they’re milking the situation for all it’s worth. Or maybe they are working on it.

8. David H Dennis on August 23rd, 2006 (Comment) #

Stephen, could you elaborate on how they’ve been cutting out third-party tools? I haven’t noticed the third-party myspace business as being anything but thriving.

Pingback: Ugliness and Social Web Design - newsmotto!

9. mark on August 26th, 2006 (Comment) #

hi,

check out here for more fun.

teen fun
teen zone

10. Bob on August 27th, 2006 (Comment) #

Asking the ugly myspace question is the exact same as asking the horrible music question.

The answer is 12 year olds. MySpace does no age verification. 12 year olds buy (or download) horrible music for no reason and like ugly websites.

Since they lie about their age on MySpace noone will ever acknowledge it least of all MySpace.

Pingback: Fanspot Applies The MySpace Ugly Attribute

11. Anthropologist on August 28th, 2006 (Comment) #

First, I think MySpace was most successful because they were able to execute their business plan. They had the backing of a successful company and were in the right place at the right time. Their design is acceptable to their target audience (teens and the community college crowd, as I like to call it). Teens are also big on inviduality (this is the “me, me, me” generation), so the ability to do whatever you want with your page, no matter how ugly, appeals to their audience.

Can the MySpace ugliness be applied in a cookie-cutter approach to all social networks? Should social networking startups eschew design principles and just copy MySpace without doing a thorough analysis? Of course not. That’s poor strategy. You need to have market relativism. What’s acceptable and desirable for one market may not be acceptable and desirable to another market.

Facebook provides the perfect example of this. Facebook has a basic interface that’s very clean and simple. Their users are not given the ability to significantly alter the design of their pages. Instead of hurting the popularity of Facebook, it’s actually one of the reasons that Facebook has been so popular. I’ve seen numerous discussions on this topic and many people that use Facebook state that they don’t use MySpace because of the interface and fact that users are destroying the pages, making the experience frustrating to this type of user. Facebook targets users at four year universities, a much different and more specific audience than MySpace. Their success shows that different audiences have very specific needs and desires.

Another aspect that deserves discussion is how design impacts your business model. MySpace controls its homepage and is reportedly able to charge $1 million/day for it. Major brands have purchased this. But when you go deeper into the site and start hitting the areas that users have full control over, you don’t see ads for major brands, you see “Hit the Monkey and Win a Prize” ads. These RON ads on MySpace are sold at an exponentially lower cost than tradition RON ads on other sites (10 cents CPM reportedly). Brands want to make sure that their ads aren’t going to be obscured or become practically invisible. Many design custom ads specifically for the property they’re advertising on. This is impossible to do if you’re advertising on a page that can be changed by anybody. Also, MySpace’s poor interface requires that you often have to go through 3 steps to perform an action that you would only require 1 step on a well-designed site. This drives their supply of advertising inventory/impressions up and demand goes down.

In conclusion, I think people that criticize MySpace and claim they are successful only because of luck are wrong. MySpace’s design and customization is appealing to their audience. On the other hand, I think people that believe design doesn’t matter and that any new social network should copy the MySpace model are wrong. MySpace’s model will not work for many audiences. It’s also worth keeping in mind that these startups are being formed to make money and one must ensure that the design is capable of supporting the goals of the business. Startups that don’t do this will suffer because of it.

12. Pauric on August 29th, 2006 (Comment) #

There is a premise here that MySpace is successful. What if it isnt? What if the bad design inherently produces results that make us beleive its somehow a good design?

“Here’s a sobering thought: If the operators of MySpace cleaned up the site and followed modern interface and web application principles tomorrow, here’s what the (pageview) graph would look like:”

http://evhead.com/2006/08/pageviews-are-obsolete.asp

13. Josh on August 29th, 2006 (Comment) #

Pauric, I agree that pageviews are a terrible way to measure success. Thanks for the link!

I think counting users is a better way, and counting active users even better.

MySpace still succeeds there, however, with millions of active users…

14. Pauric on August 29th, 2006 (Comment) #

Interesting, I’m shooting from the hip here… lets take your other post regarding Wil Wright’s thoughts that computers aid communications, which I believe to be true.

Firstly I dont know any MySpace users, I dont want to get involved in MySpace because of the way its manipulated by business with their virtual MySpace personnas, so I dont really understand the finer points of the phenomenon, aka I dont really know what I’m talking about. Ok, that as a given, lets try to compare like with like - systems that aid users goals of social communication and yearning for a sense of community.

Stack MySpace up against Yahoo with its groups, mail, IM, news, finance forums etc. Its a completely different format, that aside, I would feel confident assuming Yahoo has a larger and broader user-base, that it is used more often per person, for more vital communications, addressing a broader range of their needs (excluding the teenage sexual desires) and is more financially viable. Finally, it would also appear at a glance to be a ‘better design’, and all that entails.

So, taking in to account the points made about MySpace being in the right place at the right time, user share traction, etc. Is there really a magical Bad Design Element to be discovered in analysing MySpace’s apparent success? I feel they hit a sweet spot in the market, at the right time. I also feel MySpace will be an also-ran in 4 years time. It will first become too popular to be cool, then too contrived as it aspires to earn advertising revenue and die a very sudden death as users leave en mass becuase the cool kids found somewhere else to play.

Nothing to do with design

Sorry, not very eloquently put, but do you see what I mean?

15. Daniel on August 30th, 2006 (Comment) #

I agree with you. I personally think that social websites can be risky business — the general masses of users can really become disloyal as they tend to stick around with the “fad”/they just follow what’s hot and popular. It doesn’t really matter how good something is in actuality, just if someone starts liking it who has some followers and so on.

16. Tony on August 30th, 2006 (Comment) #

It’s not so much that 99.9% of MySpace pages are ugly (they are,) it’s that most of them are almost unusable. Some have so many embedded videos and music, that they clash with each other, bring your browser to a crawl (or crash), and have such busy backgrounds that clash with the text as to make them nearly unreadable.

When I created my first web site (on GeoCities, back in the day…I think it was around ‘95), I had very limited knowledge of how to create a website. So, I used the simple tools I was given. Looking back, I made some seriously ugly pages! As I learned, I improved. Why? So my visitors would have a better experience.

The majority of MySpace users don’t know anything about design, so they just use the “pimp mySpace” type services to churn something out. They put as much “bling” on their pages because they *can*…

How many people, when they first get a copy of Garage Band, churn out track after track on unlistenable crap? I know I did. Why? Because I *could*. It was fun, and it was cool, and I didn’t have the skill or knowledge to make anything worthwhile, but just participating in the process was good enough for me. I get the feeling it’s the same with most MySpace users.

17. Steve Portigal on August 30th, 2006 (Comment) #

This kind of reminds of attending an open-mic night. Some performers are enjoyable, and some are intolerable or laughable. And yes, this correlates to “skill” but it also corresponds to whether or not the performer is playing for themselves, or the audience. A real musician/performer is giving something - they are putting a song out there to create an experience for others. The open-mic night junkie is basically masturbating - doing something for themselves; taking the shower- and car-singing to the next level - on stage.

Great for them, but lousy for us in the audience.

If MySpace offers tools for people to do whatever they want with their page, maybe that’s the designed experience - the tweaking of your page, not the viewing of your page by someone else. Maybe it’s more important/value/impactful to have that messing about experience than it is for the viewer to do anything with it.

Enabling me to be a designer is like enabling me to be a rock star - it may suck to be in the audience, but I’m gonna love it myself?

18. pauric on August 31st, 2006 (Comment) #

I agree with the last two comments but would add they’re mostly from a designer’s perspective.

Get your heads in to the MySpace user. They want to express themselves (not specifically -design- something) and they have a desire to feel they matter, they belong, that people will listen. MySpace address some key aspects of teenage angst. MySpace is the wall of they’re bedroom, on the web. Come look at my posters, read my journal, see how many friends I’ve got, make me feel like I mean something.

The success of http://www.myspace.com is not about layout, features, lowest number of clicks, browser compatibility etc. Its not about good design or bad. Its about the users and what they want. They’ll grow up, move on to facebook. I genuinely feel Myspace will fall flat on itsface like so many teenage bands.

One upshot of this is the potential for a vast new wave of kids interested in design

19. Josh on August 31st, 2006 (Comment) #

Pauric…how you can separate design from what the users want is beyond me.

My whole point is that you can’t! If you give users what they want then it’s great design!

Granted, it’s not great visual design. But it’s great social design. I’m making a distinction here, because I feel that is exactly what has been lost in this discussion all along.

20. pauric on August 31st, 2006 (Comment) #

The separation I was making is that people dont wake up on a given day thinking ‘hey I want to design something, myspace allows me to do that’ I dont believe its perceived as a design tool, as a low-end dreamweaver.

I was specifically referring to the comments;
“If MySpace offers tools for people to do whatever they want with their page, maybe that’s the designed experience - the tweaking of your page, not the viewing of your page by someone else. Maybe it’s more important/value/impactful to have that messing about experience than it is for the viewer to do anything with it.”

and

“The majority of MySpace users don’t know anything about design, so they just use the “pimp mySpace” type services to churn something out. They put as much “bling” on their pages because they *can*…”

Which seemed to me to try to understand the myspace users from the perspective of a designer and I think its generally accepted good practice not to do this. I may have missed this, it has been a very interesting and lengthy debate, but I dont see very many people analyse the age group’s wants and desires which drive them to myspace.

Separating design, limitations, good practices, capabilities of the given tech away from user requirements is the very first thing a designer should do when building something. Then work your way towards what you can give them with today’s technologies. You want to understand what makes this phenomenon/fad popular? you wont find the answer in html layout, its inside the human psyche. I’m suggesting you take a really big step back if you want to get a handle on why something so clearly bad is used so much.

Think boy bands, tamagotchi, suv’s.. we are surrounded by products that are popular for reasons that have zip all to do with good, bad or otherwise design characteristics.

In my humble opinion (o;
p.eace

21. Pauric on August 31st, 2006 (Comment) #

You’ve really got me thinking about this now. It may be a moot point, I’m not sure yet but I do take exception to the statement “My whole point is that you can’t! If you give users what they want then it’s great design!” you made.

I would say Design has nothing to do with first defining what users want. Designing must come after understanding who you’re designing for (I do appreciate you know this though, I just want to state it)

There is no such thing as the single ‘best design’ there is an infinite number of designs that we could create to meet those goals

A good designer will arrive at something that addresses the goals/requirements well, sometimes very well.

So, now if you break that down in to a design process, a)define user b)create design c)available product

Myspace is C, you want to understand what makes C great? dont over analyse B, because it could have been any number of good designs that meet A.

Or to re-phrase, you want to reverse engineer the key points behind C success, go all the way back to the source. Design is an intermediatory stage, a means to an end, a tool you apply. And here we are at why I think this is a moot point. Are you and I talking about too different things, possibly not but I certainly feel we have a very different approach to understanding what makes a good design.

I say look at what feeds in to the design, I feel you are trying to uncover something in the design process itself. Please correct me if I’m wrong.. quite interesting…

22. Ryan Nichols on September 1st, 2006 (Comment) #

There is definitely a difference in the discussion between visual design, in which your goal is to visually communicate, and the functional design. Myspace does what it’s supposed to, allow people to express themselves and connect with others. Josh is right, it’s well designed in that sense, hence people have good experiences and it’s popular.

It’s ‘poor’ visual design is really an unfair accusation. People are doing exactly what visual design is - communicating/expressing to the best of their ability.

Facebook, on the other hand, controls the visual design of the pages, and it’s also very popular. I think, to Josh’s point, is that the visual design is not the only factor. It’s the overal usefullness to the users. Do great at that, and it very well may override other ‘negatives’.

Pingback: Startup Review

Pingback: » MySpace Case Study: Not a purely viral start

Pingback: Traces of Inspiration

Pingback: Start-up.co.nz » Startup Review.com

23. Myspace music on January 18th, 2007 (Comment) #

24. Myspace layout on January 20th, 2007 (Comment) #

It’s realy! I personally think that social websites can be risky business — the general masses of users can really become disloyal as they tend to stick around with the “fad”/they just follow what’s hot and popular.

Pingback: Edgework: Joshua Porter at Like It Matters

25. bullet proof hosting on February 3rd, 2007 (Comment) #

nice

Pingback: Pimp Myspace » Blog Archives » Learn about Myspace : Information : Computers : Technology

26. Espanacams on March 11th, 2007 (Comment) #

Nice Man

27. Pozycjonowanie on March 20th, 2007 (Comment) #

thanks for interesting article!

28. NHL Washington Capitals on March 29th, 2007 (Comment) #

Great! I think counting users is a better way, and counting active users even better.

Pingback: Pimp Myspace » Blog Archives » Can MySpace make voting popular? Illinois Green

29. casino bet poker on April 12th, 2007 (Comment) #

Ye, I agree with the last two comments but would add they’re mostly from a designer’s perspective.

30. alien on April 23rd, 2007 (Comment) #

Ugliness could be accepted, just as grunginess in music and fashion is accepted as a … Subject · Visual design · Society and culture ·

Pingback: UIE Brain Sparks » Blog Archive » The Josh and Jared Show Episode #2

Pingback: blojer » Blog Archive » Second Life y el cómic

Pingback: ugly = personal? : afhill

31. Angela on June 26th, 2007 (Comment) #

In my opinion, as long as it’s user friendly, then the design come second. Just “my opinion”.

32. net socializing on July 3rd, 2007 (Comment) #

In my opinion most important is how well the site functions in regards to meeting the users social needs. Tasteful design is nice but not a must. Are you in the Net Socializing know?

33. design for myspace on July 3rd, 2007 (Comment) #

The myspace design is so awful and myspace has such an enormous following anyway. I think that maybe design does matter but fortunately for myspace enough people with bad taste got together to make the site a success. I wish design mattered more, to the individual deciding which net socializing site to use it doesn’t seem to matter.

34. daddy design on July 10th, 2007 (Comment) #

nice!

Pingback: Pimp Myspace » Blog Archives » mattheaton.com Blog Archive Myspace and Corporate Idiocy

35. Apuestas on August 12th, 2007 (Comment) #

Pingback: Internet aesthetics « Running on Faith

Pingback: Interaction Blog » Blog Archiv » Welche Frage sollte man Jakob Nielsen stellen?

Pingback: Ugliness, Social Design, and the MySpace Lesson-by Joshua Porter « Window to My World

36. Berlin on October 25th, 2007 (Comment) #

It annoys me each time these so-called entreprenuers comment on how ugly myspace is even though I find it ugly myself. I’ve even read comments saying that it’s to where the dumb and uneducated people go as opposed to facebook, where the smart and highly educated folks ’spend their time.’ My usual reply is that if they don’t get it by now, I wish them all the luck on their start-up. Next time, I’ll send them this article. Or maybe not.

37. klimatyzacja on November 20th, 2007 (Comment) #

I agree with you

38. Goos on April 16th, 2008 (Comment) #

Nice article, but I like the discussion even more. For me it reflects the different worlds of designers and ‘ordinary’ users. We as designers think users want a nice layout, good usability and beautiful pages. Maybe we got it all wrong? It is well possible that personalization is more important then how it actually looks.

Then to the second point, what do we consider good ‘visual design’? From a designers perspective that world is likely the opposite of a fiifteen year old. Interesting stuff, thanks for all contributions.

Pingback: The Chimera Project | Customize Your MySpace Profile : Part One : Introduction