You Aren't Google or Apple (so don't design your home page like theirs) | Hacker News Reader

You Aren't Google or Apple (so don't design your home page like theirs)

blog.kadavy-inc.com

13 pointskadavy10 comments

I totally disagree with the point of this article. It's (fairly) easy to add features until you're UI is cluttered. The hard part is making the decision between what features need to be added and which detract from your final presentation. In most cases, I've found that the right balance finds itself closer to minimalism than not.

All website designers should read Apple's UI design guidelines. The idea is simple: the main operation of the website or application, or whatever else it is, should be visible and prominent. Other extra features can be built-in such that users eventually find them one by one like easter eggs or pleasant surprises.

Slamming them with row after row of buttons and boxes is disconcerting. For a new company I would say that simple is best, as long as it is elegant simplicity.

Asceticism is a whole different story. Your page should have just the right amount of appeal without being loaded down. I feel that Google, Apple, and others have mastered this fine balance, and that is perhaps the reason why it is better for new companies and startups to not try to imitate it, at least not right away. It is a hard thing to master because if it isn't done properly it will ruin the effect.

However, if a startup can pull it off right it will be much more successful then a similar complicated interface.

Great suggestion - I've read some of their UI guidelines, but I'll have to check out more.

I don't know what the specific language you're referring to is, but I do imagine an issue with expressing "the main operation of the website or application" too prominently in something like a marketplace. Imagine if eBay or Amazon tried using a huge splash that took up the entire area above the fold to explain what they were about.

I guess you could argue that in a marketplace type of site, the "main operation of the website" is expressed through displaying all of the various items for sale; but that's not the type of design that would come from the thought process this article warns against. PS not saying that's what you're implying, just observing.

I'm wondering what your interpretation of the point of the article was. The intention was for it to be "don't copy the form without understanding the function."

The "why and not the what" is an important consideration, especially for incorporating design elements from Google. If your site's primary benefit is the ability to quickly access information - a simple search box makes more sense than attempting to organize categories in another fashion (you spoke of the conditioning in search). When Twitter switched their homepage to something reminiscent of Google, I understood, I accepted and periodically use.

Oh, you use the Twitter home page? You have to sign out to use that, right? Is it that valuable?

I use periodically when I am logged into CoTweet or TweetDeck and they are buried. Also, think the homepage has value for first time users (yes, they still exist) to understand how the site functions. Type in a topic and understand "Oh, people share short comments and I can get different information on topics than Google would provide." So yes, that can be valuable.

Oh, totally see how it provides value for new users.

I don't see what's wrong with showing off your product on your homepage. Even if you have a service, have a sexy screenshot and say why it will benefit the viewer ("It will increase your conversion rate by 5%" or "Improve your customer service by being responsive").

It probably isn't as sexy as an Apple computer, but that doesn't mean you should feel the need to hide it.

The battle is often over familiar vs. intuitive designs. Creating a new design paradigm that is intuitive is much more difficult that presenting a user with a design they are familiar with. Most web design seems to follow the path of least resistance. It also suffers from the question of is this graphic design, or is it interface? Real life metrics have stole the thunder of 'pretty' designs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com