February 7th, 2007
How to Prevent Valueless Design in Social Web Sites
by Joshua Porter | 
41 Comments | shortlink: http://bokardo.com/p/568
How an over-focus on technology and visual design can hide the real value of social software.
In a fascinating piece on the amazing growth of the photo-sharing site Fotolog, Jason Kottke clearly articulates a growing problem in design:
“Fotolog…relative to Flickr…has changed little in the past couple of years. Fotolog has groups and message boards, but they’re not done as well as Flickr’s and there’s no tags, no APIs, no JavaScript widgets, no “embed this photo on your blog/MySpace”, and no helpful Ajax design elements, all supposedly required elements for a successful site in the Web 2.0 era. Even now, Fotolog’s feature set and design remains planted firmly in Web 1.0 territory.”
How do sites with sub-optimal visual design and technology grow so big and become so successful? How are MySpace, Fotolog, and Craigslist so popular in an age that values stunning visual design and amazing technology above all else? Conversely, how is it that Flickr, full of beauty and Ajax, is being overtaken by a site as boring as Fotolog?
Aye, there’s the rub…a rub that defines the current state of web design.
First off, a little throat-clearing. We’re dealing with Alexa stats here, so there are no guarantees that anything is accurate. Just because Alexa shows that Fotolog gets more traffic than Flickr doesn’t mean that it is…it’s kind of like listening to a reporter who usually covers political news tell us what’s going on in Silicon Valley. Suspect, to say the least. But for the sake of argument let’s assume that the trend is right, and that Fotolog is overtaking Flickr in terms of traffic.
Page views and Ajax…a match made in Hell
Well, one reason why Fotolog might appear so successful is the very technology that Jason mentions: Ajax. Page views are a metric that Alexa uses in its traffic calculation. But when you switch to an Ajax interface, your page views plummet. For example, when people want to add a tag, change a headline, or edit a photo set on Flickr very few page views occur. You’re simply interacting with a single screen that doesn’t refresh, but sends and receives requests in the background. This undoubtedly has a huge effect on the page views on Flickr.
Fotolog, on the other hand, gets a page view anytime a person wants to change anything. Therefore, less efficient bandwidth consumption and server usage actually gets Fotolog much higher traffic numbers…which is pretty damn ironic.
What’s more ironic is that this is an increasing problem on huge advertising sites and few people want to talk about it. What’s at stake? Billions of dollars that are wrapped up in page-view models where money changes hands depending on what “traffic” a site receives. And for years that traffic depends on page requests to a server, which of course happens even when people are doing simple things like changing a photos headline. So while companies realize that using an Ajax interface, when done well, can literally save millions in bandwidth costs and actually provide a faster, easier-to-use interface, they also realize that their advertisers only know one metric: the page view.
I’ve talked to some folks at Yahoo about this, and they say that their discussions on this topic get pretty tense. This is a huge problem for them because so much of their revenue is advertising based but they know that the future of interface design is elegant Ajax. This problem has been known for some time, but we’re still at the start of the huge effort in migrating away from the page view as a valuable metric for anything.
Technology doesn’t a great value make
Jason makes a strong case that technology is over-valued. I think he’s exactly right when he says:
“Maybe tags, APIs, and Ajax aren’t the silver bullets we’ve been led to believe they are. Fotolog, MySpace, Orkut, YouTube, and Digg have all proven that you can build compelling experiences and huge audiences without heavy reliance on so-called Web 2.0 technologies. Whatever Web 2.0 is, I don’t think its success hinges on Ajax, tags, or APIs.”
This is the exact problem I’ve been talking about lately: in some cases visual design and/or technology are trumped by other aspects of design.
In my Social Design talk, which I most recently gave at the Web App Summit, I ask this question: What are the most successful web sites in the world? The answers are the ones you would expect: Google, YouTube, MySpace, Yahoo, Craigslist, Amazon, eBay.
But then I ask the question slightly differently: What are the most well-designed web sites in the world? Outside of a minimalist Google, there is no overlap for most folks. None of the others on the list are “well-designed” in their minds…they’re simply successful, poorly-designed sites. They attribute the success of these sites to other factors: being first in the market, having economies of scale, etc.
From a visual design standpoint they might be right: these sites aren’t going to win any visual design contests. But the value of these sites goes so far beyond the visual that to judge them by the way they look is to completely miss the boat. In our testing at UIE, for example, we’ve never had anyone refuse to shop at Amazon because it doesn’t look great…in fact people are most passionate about Amazon because of the value they get from reviews…and the rest of the socially-focused features there. People love Amazon, and it has nothing to do with its visual design!
And people are passionate about the other very successful sites, too. To Jason’s point, the major value of all of the successful sites doesn’t rest on what specific technology they use or whether they have tagging. Instead, the major value rests on social aspects of the design…take away the interaction of the communities on these sites and there is very little value left in them. Take away the reviews from Amazon and you’ll hear a great big sucking sound of folks rushing out to buy their wares on some other site…
Similarly to Amazon, Fotolog relies heavily on social interaction, in their case sharing photos with friends. This is the primary value of the site, not how they do it from a technological standpoint.
The usual red herring: judging a book by its cover
Ignoring visuals and technology (at least temporarily) is a big change for many designers and technologists. Why? Because technology and visuals often get the credit when things go well, but aren’t really talked about when things go contrary to our assumptions. That’s exactly Jason’s point: why is it that Fotolog uses inferior technology and visual design and still succeeds?
I think the answer is that the differentiator on the Web right now isn’t great visual design or technology, although those help out tremendously (don’t get me wrong!). An analogy might be in order here because so many people think I’m trying to denigrate visual design…I’m not! Here’s an analogy:
Every time George Bush makes his State of the Union Address he speaks very clearly, his words are well-chosen and his speechwriters are obviously top-of-the-class. They communicate very well, and for the most part every single person who listens or watches the address knows exactly what George Bush is trying to say. Speechwriters learning the craft would do well to emulate the skill and technique of Bush’s speechwriters. Even so, the address is a bunch of statements that most people disagree with: most people want the U.S. out of Iraq and observe that the efforts there have largely been a failure. Even Bush’s own party is now alienated. But the State of the Union Address itself is well-executed: it’s clear communication…Bush is just sending the wrong message.
(update: several folks are angry with me that I used a political analogy…I’m certainly open to suggestions for future analogies where the communication is clear and well-executed but fails to deliver the right message to the audience)
This is the same with visual design: you can execute beautifully but if the message you’re sending isn’t the one the audience wants to hear then the overall design will be a failure. I believe this is what Jason is talking about with his repeated references to “Web 2.0″. He doesn’t see the value in the majority of so-called Web 2.0 services…they might look great and have interesting technology but if they don’t actually improve our lives…then what good are they?
Visual design is about communicating a message well…getting the point across. The problem comes when the message being communicated isn’t the right one…and that’s exactly what we’re seeing so much of…so many sites have great visual design and great technology but just aren’t sending a valuable message…
Where are all these sites? They’re everywhere: they’re the ones you’re NOT using.
There are two primary aspects of design: communicating the right message. Why is this two aspects? Because one aspect is communicating a message well and the other is making sure it is the right message in the first place. Perhaps this second part is what is called design strategy these days. I don’t know, but I know that one needs the other in each and every design project.
Preventing valueless design
We need a new way of thinking to prevent valueless design. Valueless design is like a George Bush speech: well-executed but wrong. While it may be communicating beautifully on one level, the impact on society may be minimal or, even worse, negative. We need design that provides real value to humans.
The new model as I call it is social design: a focus on the social lives of users, the context of how people live, and the connections they have with their family, friends, and loved ones. It’s about the daily activities that people care about, that make their lives richer, more fulfilling, and that have very little to do with how a piece of software looks or works behind the scenes.
But that’s just how I see it. I’m sure that other ways to get people in the right design mindset. I believe the best designers not only execute technically well, but have the mindset to discover the right design. They’re open to new ideas, passionate about what they do, and focused on the lives of their users in order to prevent sending the wrong message.
Links to this Post
Comments
1. David Cancel 7:20am, Wed 7th, 2007
Joshua,
I think you would be interested in the work we’re doing at Compete to define new metrics that deal with the pageview/ajax mismatch.
We’re working on releasing several metrics focused on measuring engagement. Here’s the first, the Attention Index:
http://blog.compete.com/2007/02/05/compete-attention-200/
2. pauric 9:15am, Wed 7th, 2007
Excellent post, music to my ears. While not correcting you, my view on “so many sites have great visual design and great technology but just aren’t sending a valuable message…”
Should read “so many sites have great visual design and great technology but just aren’t enabling people to do the things they’ve always done…”
Its one thing for us geeks to get excited about tech, its another level to sensibly apply the tech to aid normal people to do normal things. A majority of those things are related to social activities, but not all.
3. Josh 10:15am, Wed 7th, 2007
I’ll buy that, Pauric. Good addendum.
4. heri 10:19am, Wed 7th, 2007
hi,
i think websites have first a function to perform and provide to the users. i live in canada and one the most visited website is plentyoffish.com, a free dating website that reminds you of the 95’s eras. i am a designer but i have arrived to the conclusion that design is one of the last bits that matter in the equation.
although i also think an excellent and powerful design will make a website outstanding. If i may use your speech analogy, we are thrilled by Martin Luther king’s speech “I have a dream” because of what he says and his values. But what makes his speech truly exceptionnal is his voice, his stature and his delivery.
5. Josh 10:25am, Wed 7th, 2007
Heri, YES! MLK’s speech is made stronger by his delivery and stature…but without the words themselves and the context they were delivered in, he might have sounded a lot like Bush.
6. bgates 10:35am, Wed 7th, 2007
Josh, millions of people still support Bush, and picking him as an example needlessly antagonizes them.
[Ed: rest of comment removed for violating the "be a nice person" statute.]
7. Eddie 11:01am, Wed 7th, 2007
The latest UXPod podcast talks about your “social design” notions. There are some good examples discussed. I wrote about the podcast and my thoughts here
8. Patrick D 12:04pm, Wed 7th, 2007
I don’t think it should really come as a surprise to anyone that most people don’t value good design that much. When it comes to selling a product (which is effectively what these web sites are doing, whether people are paying or not), having the best design, or the best features, is only part of the battle. Look at Microsoft vs. Apple. Almost everyone would agree that the Apple software is better designed, and often has more useful features, yet Apple is still only a niche player.
Even outside the computer industry, the most popular products are rarely the best (in terms of quality), or even the best designed.
This is why we talk about “user experience” now, because it’s not just about the product itself, it’s about the entire experience that the product embodies. For sites like Amazon and MySpace, it doesn’t matter what they look like, because they give the user what he/she is looking for.
There really is no silver bullet for making a popular product. It’s not just about the design, it’s not just about the features, it’s not just about who else is using it…it’s a combination of all of these things and more. It’s a black art. That’s what makes it interesting
9. Kyle Korleski 12:08pm, Wed 7th, 2007
I think it could be said that sites should not be judged by page views now that we have tools that permit easier access to editing content and interaction. Therefore, we should consider the influence a website has instead.
10. Tony Wright 4:43pm, Wed 7th, 2007
Love the article.
One thing that I’ve always wondered about is whether the ugliness of the web has trained users to trust ugly and mistrust pretty.
The web, for many, is simply a tool. And, as you say, many of the trusted brands on the web are ugly (though a few are arguably well designed to the trained eye).
If I walk into a hardware store to buy a hammer, I’m not particularly interested in the beauty of the hammer– in fact, if the hammer WAS prettier than your average hammer, I might be downright suspicious.
Probably depends on the niche and the demographic, I guess.
11. Josh 7:20pm, Wed 7th, 2007
Tony, that’s a great question: are our expectations affected by our past experience on the Web, and if so, does it discount certain features over others?
12. Leith @ Birth of a Startup 1:40am, Thu 8th, 2007
I agree totally about the increasing meaninglessness of page views as a metric. Perhaps unique users or visits would be more meaningful?
And I also agree with your view on good design being important but not a must-have. People forgive bad design if overall usability is still being provided, but the inverse is not true.
13. jeremy liew 4:20pm, Thu 8th, 2007
There are two issues at work here. The first is that having a “better product” means more than just technology and design, as you point out. It includes the whole user experience, including pricing, range, community etc. Technology and design are just a subset of what makes the “best product”
The second issue is that there are times when success is less about having the “best product” and more about distribution or brand. Knowing when to focus on what is key to growing a user base. I posted about this at the Lightspeed Venture Partners blog earlier this week (the three stages for consumer startups, and when to focus on each of distribution, product and branding). If you’re interested, click on my name in the comment
14. Michael Cavanaugh 6:20pm, Thu 8th, 2007
“How do sites with sub-optimal visual design and technology grow so big and become so successful?”
The question here is supply-driven – that’s very Web 1.0: if we build it right they will come. I would turn the question around: why do viewers not demand good design?
Web 2.0 is demand-driven. Buyers (not users) will only get the level of design they believe is required to support their business goal – nothing more. The reality is that now that the Web is mainstream, design quality doesn’t necessarily make a difference. We have always been plagued with successful, badly designed magazines, television shows, automobiles, etc. Ever been in a Variety Store? They’re very successful.
“How are MySpace, Fotolog, and Craigslist so popular in an age that values stunning visual design and amazing technology above all else?”
Again, that’s the wrong question. This age doesn’t value stunning visual design and amazing technology any more than any other, whatever the Technocrati and the Designerati(??) claim. Howerever, over time talented, diligent designers will continue to create good design for clients who understand the need for it. As usual.
Bryan Zmijewski’s piece on design strategy is good, but it’s nothing that good, strategic designers haven’t known since the 50s (19 that is).
The disussion about page view metrics is very interesting but separate.
15. Josh 8:22pm, Thu 8th, 2007
Michael (20):
I like how you re-ask the question.
However, there are assumptions in the way you re-ask it. …you shy away from my term “visual design” and ask “why do viewers not demand good design?”.
I would argue that users don’t demand good visual design, because other parts of design trump it…like functionality and social aspects…hence the focus of this site.
There’s a basic assumption in your question that people don’t care about design…but my extended argument (which I don’t get into in this piece), is that whatever works best for people *is* the best design.
Now, that doesn’t mean we can’t appreciate unsuccessful designs like Apple’s Cube…but that didn’t serve the need it was intended for all that well, so in that light I think it was a failure of design. (that we can still appreciate and learn from)
You see, I see design as intertwined with use. (you cannot separate the two, as design is the act of creating something for use) Your re-asking of the question doesn’t assume that (correct me if I’m wrong).
Variety stores, for example, are very well-designed for human use. They may not pretty, but not everything in life has to be or should be…as the Tao says we must have ugly in order to have beauty…
Thanks for the well-thought reply.
16. Michael Cavanaugh 9:14pm, Thu 8th, 2007
Josh – I agree whole-heartedly with you that design and usability/usefulness are inextricably intertwined. As for dismissing visual design, visual design is in fact my background – I have a degree in painting and have spent years designing ads, magazines and websites.
And yes, I do believe visual design is bound up with functionality and behavior (social anthropology) and that people do appreciate good design, it’s just not always clear who, when and where. This question of “what/where/when is good design?” is an on-going discovery I have been pursuing for decades.
I do have a problem with your position that “whatever works best for people *is* the best design”. I have read your posts about this elswhere and it seems to me to be a tautology: Good design is whatever users like the most, users like site X, therefore site X is the best design. If this were true designers might as well turn out the lights and go home. This is a bit of market fundamentalism that gives too much credit to the audience, if I may be so elitist.
In fact, part of the role of informed designers is to push both users and buyers to a point. Sometimes audiences/markets don’t ask for something because they don’t know it exists, e.g. until offshore car designs arrived in the 70s, Detroit had no idea people would want more compact, efficient, sleek designs. Detroit had to adjust in a hurry. Social design is a dynamic, self-organizing dialectic that is dependent on input by all players.
I really do appreciate that you care enough about these issues to publish this very enlightening blog. Just trying to provide another viewpoint.
17. Josh 10:33pm, Thu 8th, 2007
Michael, I didn’t mean to suggest that you dismissed visual design. What I meant was that you talked about design in the whole while I was trying to tease out visual from other aspects…
To your point about my statement that what works best is the best design…
This is the only conclusion I have come to, because if this were not true, then we quickly lose sight of the people we’re designing for.
However, I think this view is bolstered by the idea that with ever-advancing technology and time to think (this second part may be the more important, as I wrote in the post) we can dream up always-better designs.
And, further, design doesn’t exist outside of context. So if we look at the Web right now and say “MySpace is one of the best designed sites because it has the most passionate people using it” we must not forget the “right now” part. In other words, something better will come along, perhaps a better interface, perhaps a better social system, perhaps tomorrow. Perhaps this is a bit relativistic for most…
That said, it does sound like a tautology, and I’m still working on it…but my feeling is that we too often judge design outside of context, and that to me is more like Art than Design.
And about the audience…my feeling is that the dichotomy between the audience and the designer is quickly deteriorating…*we* are the audience, too!
18. Johan 5:12pm, Fri 9th, 2007
Websites like the forementioned fotolog, craigslist, myspace don’t need stunning visual design (aesthetic values/appreciations) or the latest tech since these websites do already invoke the necessary emotive responses due to their community-based character and their provided functionality of intrest. The emotive response of the audience of forementioned websites needs to be fullfilled. As long the website does what it is supposed to do, and reinforced by its ability to scale and extend.
19. Portland Web Design 5:00am, Tue 20th, 2007
I enjoy the simplicity of Craigslist, but i don’t see any reason to keep it so terribly dry. However myspace is just a mess. Sure it does what it is supposed to do, but it doesn’t do it very well.
20. Web Solution India 1:29am, Thu 22nd, 2007
To show the breadth of web standards
As a handy tool for developers during the production phase of websites
As an aid for developers who are interested in moving towards web standards
A site built to web standards should ideally be lean, clean, CSS-based, accessible, usable and search engine friendly.
by. http://www.imagewebsolutions.com/
21. Yuli R 5:29pm, Sat 24th, 2007
Don’t forget to be SEO friendly
22. Richard from Glasgow Web Design 4:10pm, Tue 27th, 2007
I think you have to remember that technology is only a tool completely seperate from creativity. Everyone gets excited by the latest version of photoshop or Dreamweaver when really the best results can arrive when you get out of the office and gop for a walk and the park. Creativity first!
23. flashdevs 4:35pm, Tue 27th, 2007
Digg wouldnt be digg without the AJAX voting, so that example isnt a good one to use.
24. Amitav 11:31am, Thu 1st, 2007
i guess the main thing to study is the functionality. design is important but it is not the main part. a site must be good in navigation and also it must have a clear vision for the viewer. then only a site can have a nice resposne adn the most imporatnt is the content and how it is being presented.
Regards
Amitav Roy
Website: Web Design and Graphic Design – Freelancers
Blog: Web Design and Graphic Design
25. Christopher 2:54am, Fri 23rd, 2007
This is interesting site, got good information about site. Even I have similar site as would give few information about my site…..Develop and implement strategic and tactical web site focused marketing strategies that will accomplish your Goal…..If you want more information about site click the link marketing
26. Web Design India 2:14am, Tue 12th, 2007
SEO Expert and Webmaster Guidelines
1) There’s only one success: Doing what you like. A Person who wants to be an SEO Expert must be passionate about SEO. Don’t do it because there’s an increasing demand for SEO stuff.
2) Learn it all by yourself: Yeah I agree there are neither schools nor colleges for SEO courses. But no excuses: You got the web full of resources on SEO, everything of it. What you know about SEO is more important than the certificate that says you are an SEO.
3) Start experimenting with using your own site if you are in the process of becoming an SEO: Being practical is more powerful than being theoretical. Every mistake and new concept can be learned if you have your own website. Well, you needn’t be anxious, as long it’s your site. So do all those experiments with free will. Enjoy them!!!
4) SEO is an ever-changing world, which requires Faustian-spirited people. You need to keep abreast with the latest SEO trends.
5) Develop the habit of getting things done with the help of a small hint. A mentor is one who hints and doesn’t spoon-feed you. In the process, you’ll learn new things and will also able to form better strategies.
27. DK Jain 2:35pm, Fri 22nd, 2007
Well i think the main thing about a website is its structure. we should keep in mind what is the aim of the website. to flashy website is not required. the main thing is how i can convey my information to the visitor.
i like the way my website is developed
Navi Mumbai Cost & Management Accountant’s Association
let me about your views on my website and whether i am wrong.
28. Abhik 11:18pm, Mon 6th, 2007
Yes, I completely agree on this.
You must have a appealing structure of design to attract visitors and its content and design only which makes your site a success.
Thank you very much for this nice article.
29. Gurpreet 10:44am, Tue 21st, 2007
Great article indeed. It has helped me improve some of my design on my site (Celebrity Pictures).
I still need to work out a better way to collect and display user comments though.
Anyone have any suggestions for my site?
Cheers,
Gurpreet