Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 2005

Well, isn’t it ironic to talk about design mistakes when he so obviously doesn’t care about design and makes many design mistakes himself?

Of course his article is really about usability mistakes, about which he makes good points. But it is hard to read, because his line-length is way too long (unless you have a narrow browser window) and his line-length a bit too low. Also his article is quite long which seems to sin against his point 4. Not that I care about that, as long as the content is good.

I also disagree with his point 9. Of course mistakes are made with fixed layouts, but his own non-design shows what problems crop up when you are using flexible layouts.

Also, his front page is not very scannable – what do you need to look at first? Well, you’d better look away, because the colours are hideous. He doesn’t care though, even though there is https://www.builtforthefuture.com/reuseit.php …

Ideally, usability and design go hand in hand. He makes the mistake to not care about design, which means he doesn’t get his message across to the people he needs to reach most of all: the designers.

Sad, isn’t it? Ironic, yes indeed!

pizdin_dim:

Please, forgive me but I could not stand not to have my little play with the words. This is just an easy-going chat about this and that there is no need to pick up on me ?? Though, I would not avoid to answer your questions:

All points are strict “usability” related, content is a different subject.

I do not want to improve his “design” that was his own choice, though it looks simple and “old-fashioned”.

The last one:
I refer to seidon’s comment: “Design is not usability. Usability is not design.”

These are terms helping us to make discussions possible, otherwise we should include the “Big Bang”, as well.
That is why, I always try to constrain myself to “context” though, I admit, in this case I was just trying to be humorous ??

Kassad: I wasn’t picking on you specifically. If you don’t mind me saying so: You seem a tad touchy.

UserFriendly: The fluid design that Jakob uses is something I strongly subscribe to as well and would never consider that a “flaw”. In fact, I believe it’s a flaw and a sin to design in fixed width layout because that takes control away from the user, where control belongs. Users know how to resize the browser window and that’s why content should be adaptable, not rigid.

Yngwin: I don’t think you’ll find many people agreeing with you when you say Jakob “makes many design mistakes himself”. Design and usability are very closely intertwined. Web design must ultimately be usability, not aesthetics. Minimalist design, like at useit.com works very well for exactly that reason: it puts the emphasis where it should be – content and user goals.

Designers often bag Ebay, for instance, but their design is deliberately done to only support functionality and usability. I don’t know if you remember boo.com, who have (rightly) gone out of business: great looking design but nobody could work out how to use their website.

BTW: Please remember that these are just my opinions after all. Even though we may disagree on some points, as we obviously do, the whole purpose of this discussion is to do just that: voice our own opinions.

Some of you seem to be mistaking superficial style for design. That and usability are both subsets of design.

Also, for those of you who claim “design doesn’t matter,” what makes one product that serves an identical purpose better than another? Why did the more expensive iPod kill the Rio? Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it is invalid.

Besides the fact that his website is garish and butt ugly, my chief objection to the “usability mafia” is all of Nielsen’s decisions are based on generalized poll results. But you can’t apply the same rules to different audiences, for example, teens and senior citizens. But people preaching Neilsen ignore that he only caters to the lowest common denominator. The result is 1997: huge type, blue underlined links and a fluid layout that scales to 640×480. Bleh.

“But people preaching Neilsen ignore that he only caters to the lowest common denominator.”

No, that not true at all. They don’t ignore it, because that’s precisely the point. The lowest common denominator is what matters. Using words like “garish” and “butt ugly” only proves what I claim:

If that’s important to you, then pehaps you’re missing the point.

Although there are numerous definitions of the word “design”, I trust you will all agree with me that it’s definition, when applied to websites, must place most of the emphasis on behaviour and therefore interaction. The aesthetics are there purely in a minor “support” capacity. That’s why comments like “yeah, but it’s ugly” are purely subjective and don’t really mean anything. What is not subjective however, is the usability or lack of it. Whether a website achieves it’s business goals can easily be proven. Visuals, font choices, pretty pictures and other design aspects which make it “nice to look at”, have very little to do with reality, despite what some of the so-called “designers” would like you to believe.

After all, content is the only reason people come to your website. They don’t come to admire the way it looks. Google is one of the ugliest websites on the planet. But it achieves it’s goals splendidly.

pizdin_dim: I didn’t mean to say that the flexible width design is a flaw. Although I wouldn’t say fixed width design is a flaw either. In my opinion they both have their merits. Ideally what I’d like to be able to do is specify a minimum and maximum width.

I just think that moving the text further away from the sides of the page would give it ‘room to breathe’ and make it a more comfortable experience for users.

Yeah, it is just the same as with girls.

I am a reasonable man so I would second “usability”.
For some unknown reason, I do always fall back to “design” ??