Hacker News Reader

> but that is when you get the bootstrap-material-tailwind look and that is not so great either now, is it

The crux of your argument rests on this point and I think it's worth taking a step back and realizing that this is subjective and also that many people think the bootstrap-material-tailwind look is actually pretty good if not great.

It probably looks like crap to your trained eye but if the average person can't tell if something is wrong then it's probably just fine. I've seen a lot more cases of overzealous designers trying something custom and new and having it fail. Boring technology is often the best kind.

It certainly is subjective. However, there is definitely something to be said about the usage of Bootstrap/Material/Tailwind resulting in your site looking like thousands of others, with little character or distinguishing “feel” of its own.

Why does every website need a distinguishing feel? Does every published book try to come up with a new typeface?

I mean, a lot of websites are landing pages for products, and therefore serve a marketing purpose. Most books are just books.

The landing page for a product *should* look like most other landing pages. I want to see all the important information in places that I would expect. Pricing, customer testimonials, list of features, documentation/tutorial links, etc., should all be presented up front and there aren't many ways to do that well.

An amazing design could stand out from the crowd but something custom would probably more than likely end up looking worse than using bootstrap/tailwind. Especially since these SaaS companies aren't spending their headcount on hiring designers - they'd probably prefer to hire more engineers to build the actual product. If I see a design company with a boring website then I'd be a bit disappointed but I don't expect that from a run of the mill SaaS company.

> The landing page for a product should look like most other landing pages.

Yes. The big caveat being: In most ways. Much like we are 98% chimpanzees, the pudding is in the remain 2%.

> there aren't many ways to do that well.

Well, no. That is akin to saying "Each house needs a roof and four walls so, really, there aren't many way to do that well". Oh yes, there are so many ways to do it well and even more do it poorly, and, statistically, people are very clearly able to judge which is the case.

Being a great creator (in whatever field) requires the right amount of attention to detail because, really, they are not actually details. They are the pudding.

> I think it's worth taking a step back and realizing that this is subjective

On an individual level it is almost impossible to argue about design. A friend might love their uncomfortable, rainbow colored chairs for various reasons that are both beyond mine and, frankly, their grasp.

Statistically however it becomes much clearer. Apple does something right with their product design. There is not a single job any of Apples products accomplishes, that you could not get done for less by buying from someone else. And yet, people don't.

We could then argue that this has nothing to do with the design. It's just the specs, it's the marketing, it's the golden cage that is some apple products. I can not dismiss any of those with publicly available data, but, again, the inversion offers insight: Imagine a iPhone that was made out of a cheap material you dislike and painted in multiple colors that made your eyes water. The worst possible product design, whatever that is to you.

There is certainly an image of a product that you would be pretty certain wouldn't sell because of its design. Someone might say "Oh, I don't know, it's all subjective" but even though you just have your instincts, you are certain it is not, without having to try. As soon as you imagine the look and touch, you know it's just not good and most people wouldn't enjoy using it. And you would be right.

It's somewhat harder to come up with analogous example for websites, mostly because data is even less in the because websites are usually not the product, but I hope it's not too much in this discussion to take the leap and infer that there is no reason to assume it would be any different.

I think it's a matter of scope. Building a simple personal blog? Most developers can probably make something fairly readable and pretty with some thought and a CSS framework.

Increase the complexity to something that has more interaction with users and their data and you would do yourself a service to hire a competent designer.

I am not a designer, so I take a more pragmatic view. If the intent is to earn money through your website and you are earning a ton of it, then you've succeeded. It doesn't matter if an outsider considers it good or bad design. But that' s just my simple-minded view.

The whole conversation has been a bit sloppy about the differences between design and looks (and the difference is not entirely clear most of the time) but suffice to say: If you intent for your page to do x and you accomplish that because of and not in spite of the design, then, by definition, the design is good (and it might even be great).

> If the intent is to earn money through your website and you are earning a ton of it, then you've succeeded

Sure, but just as that does not mean your code is great, it doesn't mean your design is. "Earning a ton of money" is not exactly a well defined company goal. For example, if a better design (or code) could yield 2x what you make, even if 1x is "a ton", you might reconsider your stance on either. Or you maybe you wouldn't. Who am I to say.

>"Earning a ton of money" is not exactly a well defined company goal.

Well, okay, but you'll have to agree that at-least it is easy to quantify, "Good design" OTOH isn't, but again I'm not a designer so I see things differently. "Good design" "good code" in the abstract does nothing for me personally. The older I get the more I care much more about results, and the less I care about purity/aesthetics of design/code, etc. I'm around purpose-built biotech software all the time and to any UX person its going to look like ass. Janky, confusing menus, clusterfuck of various icon styles, seemingly random buttons littered everywhere etc, etc. No cohesive UX flow. But then this is expert software and is used in many aspects of vaccine r&d/production, and supports the production of high quality life saving products. I respect that, and therefore I respect the software as well.

I think the stuff in this article is very useful and it is definitely easier than ever to create a non-terrible design. They can create guardrails that makes your design is legible, responsive and mostly accessible. That's not a "great" design, that's a passable design. The bigger trick is UX. How do you actually optimize user behavior and minimize frustration. That's a whole other skill.