Ugly sells

The foundation of a good website is what it is going to be used for, and what information and services it is going to give you. An ugly site that is plain text, has some cheap images, but offers every service, is easy to understand, and can actually do what it says well will always beat the slick glossy site that becomes difficult to navigate. Big fonts, giant buttons, and such, may look terrible, really awful, but they are easy to read and use. I have seen many sites with small fonts, and tiny little grayed out fonts with slick buttons. I get headaches when I see a page filled with size 9 font and I actually have to read the darn thing (I know of this zoom function – but are people really going to waste time to zoom in when they could go to a different site for what they are looking for?). Then, we come to the site for a home run company, built seemingly by someone with little taste or skill. The fonts are massive, size 16 and above in MS word. True, they can be too big, but usually they are around that 16-22 size. Ugly, awful, horrible looking – but you know what? Anyone can read it – including older users of the web who might want that service.

You’ve seen ugly sites before, you know, the ones that have the contrasting parts, the unsmoothed graphics, the poorly created templates that still work. Now, I’m not talking about half-coded piles of garbage, no indeed that is not what I mean. Nor am I discussing spam sites with a billion word variations that are completely out of whack. I am talking about basic websites that are created for no other purpose than to get their point across. But why would they be able to sell their products and services, or even just sell themselves, better than a Web 2.0 glassy glossy gooey site? Because they’re not a glassy glossy or gooey looking site! It is precisely the way they focus on things that makes them stand out and become a better seller than the alternatives which are slick and well defined in how they look – but muddled in what they really are. You could have a site designed so well that anyone who sees it says “Wow, that is awesome looking!” and they might stay around for a while and check it out. Yet, later on, you find that they don’t come back or seem interested. “Why is that?” you might ask. The answer is usually because although the site looks really great, it may not actually be that great.

Now, it is all well and good to have information and forms presented easily along with the basic functions that the sites are trying to fulfill. The trappings (the shingles on the roof if you will) on many Web 2.0 sites seems to be the content (rather than it being the core) or if they do a good job on the content they decide to slick up the site. This can muddle navigation, and also put users off. Who are you going to trust with your money, services, or membership on the internet anyways? Are you going to trust a website that looks like a MegaCorp built it, and it is designed to suck your wallet until it slowly shrivels up and dies? Or are you going to trust the site that looks like an amateur webmaster with better things to do (like running a brick and mortar business that you could actually go to) designed over the course of a few classes in 1998 – and has remained nearly unchanged in styles since? Personally, since most of these home-grown sites also have real business locations I would be inclined to set up shipping or dealings with them. In the case of sites that are functionally set up for memberships like forums or social networks, a simpler site more focused on the purpose of the community always does better than a slickened forum or site that has way too many graphics, gradients, and goo. MySpace might be the bane of existence for many, but because it lets the users make their themes it is popular. The basic MySpace blue page is simple to understand, and the site is easy to learn.