Aesthetics In Web Design -- An Experiment
September 09, 2004 | 
53 Comments
Summary: A small experiment in aesthetic preference as it relates to Web designs.
I’ve been thinking, for a while now, about the value, challenges involved and effects of aesthetics on a Web design. To me “aesthetic details” differ from “design” when it comes to the Web, and while I find them important, I don’t think they’re the most important part of what makes a Web site successful.
Not even close actually. That’s not to say they’re not important, it’s just that there is no way to please everyone when it comes to aesthetics. Those of you who, like me, deal with opinionated clients will know exactly what I’m talking about. This goes quadruple (if not more) when talking about Web design.
You do need to worry about them, and if you don’t it’ll show, but trying to “get them perfect” can be an exercise in utter futility.
I’ve got a more detailed post in mind on the subject, but I thought first it’d be fun and interesting to do a little experiment.
The Web Aesthetics Experiment
What I’d like y’all to do is take a look at a few very well designed, yet visually different, sites and let me know which one you like best and why—based solely on your aesthetic preference.
I thought (and I hope they don’t mind) I’d use the personal sites of the “Design Fab Five” for this one. Mainly because I feel if I’m going to do this I should subject myself and because I love all of these sites visually for different reasons. Oh, and because these guys love to argue about this stuff.
Really though, I expect choosing one will be a challenge and should make for great debate.
So, look at the following sites, pick the one you like the best visually and let us know why.
- My own site — Asterisk
- Greg Storey’s Airbag
- Andrei Herasimchuk’s Design By Fire
- Cameron Moll’s Authentic Boredom
- Didier Hilhorst’s Nundroo
I’ll go first
First off, it’s pretty obvious that visually these all blow my site out of the water. At least to my own eyes. I’m the least talented as far as visual design goes, no doubt there. So, I’m out. After that the choice gets much harder. They’re all very good and I like each of them in different ways and for different reasons.
I think I feel that Greg’s site is the most aesthetically pleasing, with Didier’s a close second. I love the color with the blue and red/orange and I really dig the graphical touches with the hula girl and the zeppelin. The layout is unique and it’s put together in such a way that you can really identify it’s all his own.
As to why I like it better; I think it’s the combination of color and whitespace. For some reason it’s different enough that I find it more pleasing on the idea. Other than that, again, I’m not really sure, I just like it a bit better than the others.
I like its style I guess.
See, it’s totally subjective and even thinking about it I can’t really put my finger on why I like it better. Is it a better “Web design” than the others? I don’t think so. I like the look more, but they’re all very good designs and I’d be more than happy with any one of them.
Your turn
So, what do you think. Which do you prefer aesthetically and why? Feel free to discuss and answer any way you like, let’s just try and keep this positive (stick to what you like) as none of these guys solicited opinions on their sites and will probably want to kick my butt as it is!
Filed under: Web Design
Comments
1. Andrei Herasimchuk said:
Funny…. of the group, I always find mine to be the worst visually.
I like Greg’s on days when I’m feeling overwhelmed by all the ornamentation in the world, preferring the simple beauty of type and whitespace). I like Didier’s on the days when I’m totally into technology, gadget, toys and brainstorming. (More often than I care to admit.) I like Cameron’s on days when every little detail in everything around me is catching my eye. And I like yours on days when I need a solid foundation to keep me going, when everything needs to make sense and the world needs balance.
I like mine only when I’ve been drinking a lot of wine.
Posted on September 9, 2004 02:39 PM | #
2. Keith said:
Andrei – Ha! Too funny. My site kind of looks a bit wine stained as well right now.
Funny you like them differently depending on the mood you are in. I find that very telling. Your descriptions are very good and hit pretty close to how I’d describe the sites were I not “comparing them” – I too like them all, that’s why they make a good test case for this experiment.
Posted on September 9, 2004 02:55 PM | #
3. Kyle said:
Interesting topic…
I like Nundroo the best, with Asterisk being a close second. I like the attention detail in both and the “richness” that adds to the text. I do like all of them.
Also, I like the “tweaks” you’ve made (the new orange is better) to your site. Nice that you listen and adapt.
Posted on September 9, 2004 03:11 PM | #
4. Blair Millen said:
I’m very keen on Airbag: it’s the original “wicked worn” look… nice use of whitespace, simple colour pallette and aesthetically pleasing layout.
However, Design by Fire is the best design out of the list you have provided. The key to this decision is the plain colour background (that orange is brilliant). Additionally the full-width header provides a very authorative attention grabbing title/label for the site.
The patterned background image has maybe had it’s day :0/
Posted on September 9, 2004 03:18 PM | #
5. Chris Vincent said:
Visually speaking, I like Airbag the best. The colors are just great, the feel is clear and bold. And I love the way the zeppelin is so sleek and shiny in that beautiful sky, and then it’s cut off by That Wicked Worn Look™�. It’s a nice visual contrast.
Airbag also pulls off this feel where the graphics seem flat and yet have amazing depth at the same time. I don’t know exactly how to explain it other than that.
Posted on September 9, 2004 03:19 PM | #
6. Scott said:
My favorite site of them all is Andreis, it just works for me. I like how the header stretches 100% but the content is smaller and centered, I like the bold use of color and I just like it overall. Something about it intrigues me.
Not to go off subject but the blog that interests me most is Dunstans Blog. I don’t know what about it is so great, I just love it!
Posted on September 9, 2004 03:24 PM | #
7. Jeff Minard said:
My #1 goes to Air Bag - I’m a sucker for the simple, open layouts. Just love them. Plus the vertical logo treatment on the inner pages makes me tingle :D
Of other note, “Design by Fire” has the best Typography for me, but it’s just too bright to win over my love for the clean look of Airbag ;)
Posted on September 9, 2004 03:25 PM | #
8. Roderick Howard said:
I like Airbag the best with Asterisk and Nundroo coming a close second and third. I really like how Greg incorporated the longboard for his around the web link section. The graphic of the hula girl and the color give a otherwise bland looking site a lively appearance. I also like how the links section has its own column. The links kind of have added importance this way, plus you don’t have to scroll half way down the page to find them.
Posted on September 9, 2004 03:29 PM | #
9. Tim said:
First time commentor. I like all the sites above, but I like this one (Asterisk) the best visually. With Authentic Boredom 2nd.
I like the layout and colors. I like the “lushness” and “classicness” of it. ANd I really like the “signature” background. They might have had their day, but not for this site. I remember when Keith tried to pull it away and everyone freaked out so he put it back. I’m glad he did.
Posted on September 9, 2004 03:29 PM | #
10. Liz Calkins said:
From a non-designer’s POV:
Design By Fire has a nice layout now, but… we’ll get to the rest in a moment.
Nundroo is very nice. Clean, has just the right touch of color, and I like the sort of idiosyncratic icon and tab placements, without getting too wild.
But in the end, I really like your new color scheme here (the purple, anyway), and you have a good layout. And not too much white… I find designs with lots of white hard on the eyes.
As for the rest of the DBF commentary… I know you wanted to keep it positive, but considering the seeming new color trend lately, I’ve really been dying to ask… am I the only person who hates the color orange? (apologetic look)
Posted on September 9, 2004 03:31 PM | #
11. coda said:
For me it’s Airbag as well. I’ve never been a fan of pattern backgrounds (particularly yours, Keith ;)) so that rules out three in the list. Also Airbag is the only one that doesn’t consist of the container with a drop-shadow on the wallpaper/gradient beneath, which is how the majority of blogs are looking these days. And don’t start with the “well, it’s a blog after all!” argument. ;)
Your site has a very boxed-in feel, considering it only has two columns. When I look across a page I see no less than 11 line separations, if you know what I mean - as opposed to Airbag which only uses lines as separators in lists. I’m a big fan of minimalism and find the white space more appealing.
Authentic Boredom is one big wallpaper pattern, but when I look beyond that I really like it, especially the strong reds.
Nundroo to me feels off balance and doesn’t hang together nicely. I appreciate the attention to details and colour use here.
Design by Fire… well I guess the orange is too much (I browse at 1400x1050) and I don’t like the bevelled navigation bar with dark outlines. The rest I like.
[Side-note] this has little to do with aesthetics: with the exception of Airbag and Authentic Boredom, all those sites generate horizontal scrollbars at 800x600 when I assume they were designed to accommodate that screen size. Meh. Nasty trend…
Posted on September 9, 2004 03:56 PM | #
12. Tim W. said:
Ok, here goes. The first thing I noticed is that they all take the centered-column approach.
Asterisk, Authentic Bordom and nundroo have the more traditional center column with contrasting page background and right-hand column. I find this, in general, helps me focus on the content and is pleasing to the eye without being distracting.
Having said that, Asterisk and Authentic Bordom are more successful than nundroo. I find the diagnals there to be too disruptive. Additionally, on nundroo I’m not sure where to look. This is the first time I’ve ever visited the site and I’m not sure where/what the content is. My eyes goes from the big blue nundroo box to the right gray box to the greyed out world map and down and I wonder what I’m looking for. (Of course, that could just be me.)
Asterisk, on the other hand, is my favorite as it has a subtle color palate and easy-to-follow layout. Authentic Bordem has the fame general feel, but the kid’s face kind of creeps me out, so it loses a couple of points.
As for Airbag, I agree with the general sentiment that it is masterful in its use of white space. However, as a user/reader I always feel slightly uncomfortable reading it because I have to look at the lower right corner for content - probably one of the least used spaces on the web. (I realize that Mr. Storey is probably well aware of this and has done it purposefully.) Also, I find the double left-hand columns awkward. I seldom see what is in the far left column and only rarely look at the “longboard” column. (OK, mosly I only notice the girl in the hulu skirt….) I also feel that the header is too big, pushing the content further down and right - I like to find the content up higher on the page.
Finally, for Design by Fire takes the same centered-column approach, but tops it with a browser-wide header. My initial impression is that something is wrong as the page isn’t all the same width. I’m not sure how else to describe it. I find that once I scroll down a bit so that the header is off of the screen I feel more comfortable. Though I must say, I do like the orange.
And there you have it. A non-designer, web-coding novice’s view of five sites.
Posted on September 9, 2004 03:57 PM | #
13. Ty said:
I prefer Nundroo. I like the color and layout. It was kind of like your old color scheme, Keith, which I prefer to the current one, because…well, I don’t know I just do.
And for CODA (#11) if you read the post this was supposed to be “positive” not “I don’t like this or that”…you should take a look at your own site. It’s a mess of dark, hard to read, over-designed uglyness.
Oh and your background is really, really bad. It’s distracting to say the very least.
Posted on September 9, 2004 04:06 PM | #
14. steve said:
Visually Airbag wins hands down for me. Its the most interesting layout, subtly drawing the eye using clever placement & whitespace. Its color scheme is strong, whilst still being soothing. But then again maybe I just like red & blue!!
Cameron’s site as a runner up, you can’t go wrong with a baby!!
I love your site Keith, and visit here more than any other website. The content is beautifully organised (information architecture can be beautiful!). I often read every word on asterisk, and always visit the site, rather than stare at bloglines, because its so easy to absorb the fantastic content
For me, Asterisk is the best design. Airbag is gorgeous (the desktop is one of my favorites), but I rarely read much there.
Posted on September 9, 2004 04:21 PM | #
15. coda said:
Ty, I feel my comment is honest and subjective, and I said what I like and don’t like.. so if that offended you then my apologies. I’ll lie next time.
Posted on September 9, 2004 04:23 PM | #
16. Keith said:
Coda and Ty – Ok, nock it off. Coda’s comments were fine, but yeah, let’s keep to what we like if possible. I know it’s hard!
Also, I thought I’d fixed the horizontal scroll thing. Turns out I had not, but a few tweaks and it should be ok now. Thanks for the inadvertant reminder.
Let’s keep it on-topic from here on out please.
Posted on September 9, 2004 04:27 PM | #
17. Mike D. said:
On days when I want a well-designed website, I choose Andrei’s.
On days when I want a poorly-designed website, I choose Fox News.
And on days when I want the worst website ever designed (and trumpets), I choose this one.
Posted on September 9, 2004 05:11 PM | #
18. Lalitree said:
“Just tryin’ to stay positive” - (that’s a Mike Skinner line, y’all)
Airbag is lovely and the text is well-treated. I love the design on his links-bar. The site feels almost print-like in its appearance–I’m not sure if I can explain that entirely well, but I just mean that it looks so good in places that it almost looks like it wasn’t made in such a limiting media as the web. My second favorite.
DBF is nice, its look and feel is soft and inviting (text color, shadows, treatment on the photos, etc).
AB has the most cohesive feel, its aesthetic is very reminiscent of What Do I Know. Still, it’s probably my favorite of the list. I like that it’s very well organized, that the feel of the website is consistent–you can tell that the designer has a real vision. I like that the colors pop out really well from the light grey and white background.
I can’t think of much to say about Nundroo.
I like Asterisk even though the style doesn’t really match my tastes. The content is really well-presented–I always end up reading a lot more whole entries here, more than many other sites who’s designs are more my style.
Posted on September 9, 2004 05:12 PM | #
19. Richard said:
I’m not a designer although I’ve frequented all the sites in the list but airbag more. Why? My guess: more white space, more accessible content, less self-conciousness design-wise.
This last point is something I’ve felt for a long time about many sites that are beautiful but maybe a bit too beautiful or beautiful in a strutting my stuff kind of way.
Again, I’m speaking here not as a designer (which I am definitely not) but as a user who’s sensitive to useability issues.
However (and I know this is not the question), Greg’s content (his main posts) sometimes irritate the heck out of me. This is good and I comment, etc. but I can’t separate his content from his design so sometimes I get irritated there. Guess I’m an old curmudgeon.
This site (asterisk) which I like a bit less visually I like more content-wise: I like Keith’s tone of voice and, frankly, his humbleness, or should I say “your” since this is aimed at Keith. I learn things every time I read a post and comment thread here and so for me, any design issues fall away.
As usual, this is a great question Keith and I leave thinking, which is part of your design. Nice job.
Posted on September 9, 2004 05:20 PM | #
20. Jason Santa Maria said:
Hands down, Airbag. Greg’s design succeeds on many levels to reinforce its message and its personality. Beautiful use of whitespace, grid and branding. The design works so well because it is just as much as it needs to be, with nothing extraneous mucking up the works. I am talking just design; content-wise you guys would have a much closer race.
Posted on September 9, 2004 05:23 PM | #
21. Tom Dolan said:
I’m biased I guess, but the ‘Bag does it for me. I think by far the most sophisticated, elegant and transcending-the-blog layout of the five, perhaps on all of the web.
Posted on September 9, 2004 05:45 PM | #
22. Brian Rose said:
I love every design you’ve mentioned, and for most of the reasons stated by those commenting previously. Airbag is great because of its whitespace, Asterisk is very visually pleasing in terms of graphics and layout, and Design by Fire is, hands down, my favorite site because of its simplicity and choice of colors. Cameron’s site has been so inspirational that it’s a staple in my daily browsing habits - hell, it’s my homepage. :P
Nundroo is also an excellent site, though I don’t frequent it much. I’m sure it will grow on me after I add it to my blogroll.
I guess I’m have to say that DxF is my favorite design, though all of these come very, very close.
Posted on September 9, 2004 06:07 PM | #
23. Peter (01010) said:
Everything I like in order of preference.
1 Didier - I like the soft colours and neat lines and the map. The graphical elements add a little interest.
2 Keith - I like your new asterisk and bullets.
2 Cameron - I like the baby
5 Andrei -
5 Airbag -
Aesthetics sure are subjective! Just so I don’t depress anyone too much, I would be far more positive if asked about design.
Posted on September 9, 2004 06:19 PM | #
24. Adrian said:
1 - Airbag
2 - DxF and *
4 - Bordom
5 - Nundroo
Airbag comes in first for all the reasons mentioned above. It just has a fun and happy look to it that makes you want to go back.
DxF and Asterisk are joint second. Both are instantly recognisable and pleasing to the eye. Asterisk has an old-world charm to it while DxF is brash and modern. Both are great as they are.
Authentic Boredom lives up to its name for my eyes. It is the great articles that keep me going back.
Other than the content, there is nothing about Nundroo that would make me want to look at it. An excellent advert for RSS and newsreaders, methinks!
No offense meant to any of the listed designers, it is just my personal taste, which counts for nothing anyway!
Posted on September 9, 2004 06:51 PM | #
25. Aquileia said:
I’m going to pipe in since I surprised myself: I find Cameron Moll’s site most aesthetically pleasing out of the choices. I always thought I preferred the open, clean look of an Airbag or Design by Fire, but in comparing the five sites together, I just really liked the faint patterns and the white/gray/red scheme. And his fonts are visually appealing. Second is Asterisk; I’ve always liked this design, too (and the content!).
Posted on September 9, 2004 07:18 PM | #
26. Rick Yribe said:
Didier Hilhorst’s Nundroo is my favorite based purely on aesthetics. Why? Well, because nice and soft. And, because of this, it’s welcoming, and is very easy on the eyes.
For Airbag. Well, I like minimalism, but for some reason, the layout just doesn’t appeal to me as much as others do. It’s probably because my focus isn’t really on anything in particular. So, that’s just a little confusing. Also, the middle column doesn’t seem to fit for me. It’s like a huge divider and I’m not sure whether I should be looking to the right or to the left of it. Which side has the content on it? Just by quickly scanning, I have no clue. The header is also quite big, which forces me to scroll down to see actual content.
The orange of Design by Fire is a nice and welcome change when compared to the rest of the blogosphere, but I think that we rarely see orange for a reason. That reason is that it’s a very harsh color. He does execute the layout of the site well, but it’s too bright for me.
Cameron Moll’s Authentic Boredom is an awesome site, I must admint. I think the layout is also great, but I didn’t choose this one for this poll because when I view his site, I am instantly drawn to the content. The beautiful layout is an after though. It doesn’t get in the way, and only adds to the experience. Some may argue that this is exactly what good design is, but we’re talking about aesthetically pleasing, aren’t we? ;)
And, then we have Nundroo. It suffers from much of the same that Airbag suffers from. I’m really not sure, but, there’s just something about the colors that it uses that catches my eye and grabs me (in a good way). The colors make me interested and give me a reason and a pull to continue looking at the site. As I scroll down, I’m presented with very soft, clean images and typography, which all add to the overall presentation of the site, and is my reason for choosing it as the best.
As for Asterisk…Let’s just say, you said it best yourself. ;) But, actual content > all.
Posted on September 9, 2004 08:08 PM | #
27. George Darik said:
I prefer Asterisk the most. I find it amusing (and rather charming in an annoying way) to hear Keith say he feels his is the least visually appealing.
These are ALL great sites with VERY visually appealing designs. It’s almost like splitting hairs, but I guess that is part of the point we’re trying to prove with this “experiment.”
Aesthetics are a huge part of design (I realize the distinction) and as a formally trained graphic designer I judge these things on the aesthetic elements and I like Asterisk the best.
Why? The colors (both now and before) are great. The details aren’t as, detailed, as the others, but they’re very fitting to the whole mood of the site. The feel, for lack of a better term, of the whole site (and these things must be taken as a whole) is more complete and old world classy, like a comfortable book. I feel at home here.
I, too, love Airbag, but it doesn’t strke me emotionally at all. It’s fun, but a bit sterile. Neither do any of the others. Well, maybe Authentic Boredom, but it find it’s a bit too fussy for my taste.
But, like you say, it’s all about personal taste and when it comes down to it it is just not possible to please everyones tastes.
This is a fun “experiment” though.
Posted on September 9, 2004 08:28 PM | #
28. Mario T. Lanza said:
I beg to differ. No, asthetics are not the most important part, but they’re closer than one might think.
I’m not going list the checklist for creating professional asthetics, but simply say that the better the asthetics the more visitors/customers a site will attract (and keep!). The sites I bookmark and visit most regularly have great asthetics. Admittedly, because content is king, I make exceptions where the value of the content is overwhelming.
Each of the sites on your list has wonderful asthetics, yours included. Determining what features, colors, layouts, etc. combine to create that most preferred asthetic flavor is an interesting experiment, however, a very subjective one; each person will have his own fancies and, as noted, you can’t please ‘em all.
Years as a software developer have taught me something about how users evaluate software. Where we as programmers see functions/features, users see interfaces/asthetics. How enthusiastic and receptive a customer is to my software often directly correlates to the interfaces/asthetics – assuming the software is not encumbered with bugs – esp. when the customer will be using my software for hours daily. (I couple interfaces together with asthetics, not in their functional use, but in their visual appearance or asthetic value.)
I think you be surprised to learn how many sites lose readers/customers/visitors because of poor asthetics. With so much interesting content/wares available in dozens of articles/blogs/e-stores, it’s so easy to pick and choose those having the best content/prices/wares AND great asthetics. To avoid any misunderstanding, I’m not saying that site designers must spend countless hours creating the most superior asthetics to attract visitors, but that they ought make sure that their asthetics are at least pleasingly up to par.
Incidentally, at the present moment I liked Airbag best. Great uncrowded white space with a touch of color and graphics.
Unfortunately, the tough part for so many of us aspiring web designers is to incorporate that right touch of graphics. Because sooooo many technologies take precedence in our workdays, how can we ever find time to learn Photoshop and Illustrator techniques?!
Posted on September 9, 2004 08:38 PM | #
29. Keith said:
George – Thanks!
Mario – I agree with you to a certain extent. Aesthetics are important (I spend lots of time on them in my designs) when it comes to Web design, but there can be some serious problems with spending too much time on those details. They can, and will, seriously derail some projects.
But it depends on the project. In my mind many Web projects (mainly with content-based sites) get way to caught up in the details of the aesthetics.
If you are working on an eye-candy type of site they’d be more important. And some people still wouldn’t like the resulting design.
It’s hard to explain, and I plan to try in a follow-up post, but what I am trying to express is that these kind of details are important, but as long as you have them, and they’re geared toward your goals, the style of what you are trying to achieve, you don’t need to worry about everyone jiving with them.
I realize it doesn’t make much sense.
I guess it’s more about consensus than it is the actual aesthetics. These kind of details don’t work well with consensus, but many Web designers, creative directors, art directors and the like get so caught up in pleasing everyone (or themselves, just as big a problem) as to miss the point of Web design all together.
I see sites like this all the time, so much time is spent on the details that the actual purpose of the site (which usually isn’t showing off the designers visual style) is lost.
I’m rambling, but the point is, aesthetics are very important, just subjective and not so important as to trump other important aspects of your design.
Posted on September 9, 2004 08:58 PM | #
30. Cameron Moll said:
Arg. You. Me? Never.
Posted on September 9, 2004 09:02 PM | #
31. Keith said:
Mario – You got me thinking. You know what it is? The problem with aesthetic detail? It’s perfection and style and creative conflict. I’ve butted heads with designers who’s style I don’t like (and I’ve got a pretty open view of other’s style) and it’s caused projects to go into take longer, cost more money, etc.
I’ve had clients / PMs / Stakeholders who don’t like my style on a particular project cause me to have to do all sorts of rework, never mind the original was more visually pleasing to the users tested with it. Or worse, just wasting time on some non-designers design preference. Arg.
I’ve spent too much time tweaking my designs, based on feedback and opinion, only to find someone else has a different problem.
The perfect design doesn’t exist. The perfect Web design is much more elusive.
Style is important. Detail is important. Art direction is important. Aesthetics and visual branding are important. But these things are a small part of the overarching discipline that I find essential–design.
With Web design, design about a whole load of things–IA, layout, content presentation, interface. It’s with “grapic design” or “visual design” that I see the least bang for your design buck and the most time spent when it comes to Web sites. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Obviously, by the reactions to this post, there is a whole lot of room for interpretation, none of which has any real effect on the success of a site.
But then again, the visual design of all these sites kind of “fits” so maybe we’ve not learned much, I guess it’s just my opinion that visual design isn’t as important as other things.
Doesn’t mean you can get away with not putting time, money and effort into visual design–just like you point out.
Posted on September 9, 2004 09:19 PM | #
32. Lachlan Hardy said:
The first three I like for the same reasons that most people here have mentioned. If it was DxF’s previous (experimental) design, then I would have ranked it first - so clean and spaced out
Nundroo on the other hand, I dislike for all the same reasons as others have listed that they like it. It is too soft. I find it hard to distinguish the various little greys (and I don’t have any particular vision problems). It impresses the hell out of me, and I wish I was half as talented design-wise as Didier, but I don’t like it aethestically
Posted on September 9, 2004 09:45 PM | #
33. Brian Rose said:
Andrei, Keith, and Cameron:
I find it quite humbling that all three of you view your individual aesthetic as you do. With the amount of weight each of you hold in my mind and my design choices, it’s nice knowing that all three of you do what you do for the good of the community and not just to show off your skills in Photoshop.
It’s certainly people like you that I’m grateful to have in the web design community - modest, intelligent, and insightful.
Thanks, guys.
Posted on September 9, 2004 10:09 PM | #
34. Cameron Adams said:
Perhaps it’s a good idea to ask how often you like a site’s design in spite of its aesthetics i.e. a site where you really don’t like the style/aesthetic, but still think is well “designed”.
Posted on September 9, 2004 10:53 PM | #
35. Michael said:
It’s also Greg’s Airbag for me. Enough reasons have been mentioned, so I’ll keep it at that.
Posted on September 9, 2004 11:00 PM | #
36. Mario T. Lanza said:
Keith - I have run into the derailment issue myself getting too carried away with asthetics. Trouble is I haven’t developed a flair for the graphics integration end of web design – I’m hoping to read future posts describing some of the techniques used by the Fab 5 of Web Design. [hint-hint]
Anytime I pit my untrained self against an Adobe product, I lose. Unlike the Microsoft products I work with daily, Adobe products are completely un-intuitive! (I plan on learning them; I have 2 books stowed away for a rainy week.) This leaves many upcoming web designers to designing CSS layouts, that although good, are not great. Even the smattering of graphics used on SimpleBits is enough to push the pleasing-asthetics threshold.
Back to the topic… I agree that web designers must focus on many other issues more critical to usability and function. The unceasing pursuit of perfection in any area (not only asthetics) quickly reaches a point of deminishing returns. Unfortunately, we I.T. guys tend to be perfectionists, so curbing perfectionism is against our natures. When you just so happen to be artistic as well, look out! It’s no wonder so many projects go over budget.
Perhaps in the future more web designers will create (or purchase) templates that are easily integrated into a site’s structural design.
Posted on September 9, 2004 11:08 PM | #
37. Tommy Olsson said:
I can’t really choose between Asterisk* and Airbag for the #1 spot. Andrei’s DxF is next, but I think his previous design was more attractive (there’s something about the top that doesn’t “do it” for me, but I do like the colours).
Didier’s site is probably very nice, but I’ve disabled Flash so I get a big, ugly eye-sore of a placeholder instead, that ruins the whole thing.
Cameron’s site is beautiful, but it feels a bit too styled for me. The contrast is very low and some of the text is really hard to read.
Airbag feels very “clean.” Asterisk* is strict and stylish, without excesses.
Posted on September 9, 2004 11:19 PM | #
38. Lukasz said:
Airbag is my number one - great usage of whitespace, great logo and coherent – contrary to loads of *eclectic* sites – design.
Design by Fire is, erm, so-so, nothing special. Asterisk is just good, or it used to be good. Now I don’t like it what I have stated in comment to former write-up.
Nundroo and Cameron’s sites I like the less. Nundroo is … I just don’t like. I find the text hardly legible, the flash map is not navigable. Cameron… well, it’s too stylish, I think. Also, there’s a mix-up of few styles (the stylish one and worn-out, which, IMO, do not go with each other).
From these you mentioned, I am picking Airbag. Yours used to be second but now the gap between the leader and Asterisk is bigger than ever. Still, I like your style :-)
Posted on September 9, 2004 11:37 PM | #
39. Gabriel Mihalache said:
Design By Fire v2 would have been *by far* no.1 The current version just doesn’t do it for me.
The 2 front runners, of which I’m having a very hard time picking a favorite, are Authentic Boredom and Airbag. I guess I’ll have to pick Airbag because I enjoy the layout.. it’s very “happy” for lack of a better word. Authentic Boredom seems to have sort of a whitespace deficiency in comparison (pattern overload?)
All the sites are wonderful, and I could never expect to produce anything simillar in the next few years (at least) and the technique behing them is impressive.
Posted on September 9, 2004 11:50 PM | #
40. manuti said:
I like “AIRBAG”.
Posted on September 10, 2004 12:20 AM | #
41. Zephyr said:
I prefer Asterisk and Airbag. These two seem clean, and not afraid to use black verdana on white background, which is just plain readable ;) The others seem a bit ‘overdesigned’ if that makes any sense… trying too hard.
Posted on September 10, 2004 02:12 AM | #
42. chuck said:
what a question!
they’re all great for the content and that is why I visit these sites … that they’re aesthetically pleasing is gravy …
my coin has Airbag on one side and Nundroo on the other …
up it goes … and lands on Airbag … the aesthetics of it just appeal to me - my own personal style … I love lots of whitespace, I love the slightly ragged look and great imagery … plus his layout is just different enough from the standard looking blog to really make it distinct …
but like I said - the content keeps me coming back
/cm
Posted on September 10, 2004 04:23 AM | #
43. Filosof said:
I like Authentic boredom the most and the second one ‘ll be Airbag… :-)
Posted on September 10, 2004 05:17 AM | #
44. Kolano said:
Airbag: I never liked doubled sidebars
Asterisk: Your too hard on yourself, I think your design is nice.
Authentic Bordom: The text is too large for that thin a column. I guess I should also say I find fixed width design annoying for this very reason.
Nundroo: Too much whitespace in sidebar, and different sidebar styles per tab is odd.
Design by Fire: This site is really clean, I really like it.
Posted on September 10, 2004 05:41 AM | #
45. Krista said:
My fave is Authentic Boredom, mostly because of the “wicked worn look” and the way he uses red and blue to complement the grays of the colour scheme. There’s a lot of detail there to appreciate.
Asterisk would be #2 for me. I like the new softer mauve tones and have always liked the background pattern. The only aesthetic criticism I have is that I don’t think the new mauves go well with the orange backgrounds of the main navigation. Personal preference, eh? Everybody’s got one. :)
3. Airbag
4. DxF
5. Nundroo
Posted on September 10, 2004 08:01 AM | #
46. Lea said:
Design wise, here are my rankings (based on your list…):
1. Nundroo
2. Airbag
3. Cameron M
4. Asterisk
5. DxF
I think Didier’s Nundroo takes it for me because aesthetically speaking only–it’s the one that balances its text, colours, and textures in the best way, IMHO. I guess it also reminds me of just old-school Flash design, where things are really techy and pretty, and to-hell-with-*insert some standards statement here*. It’s oh-so-obvious that Didier is a DESIGNER first, more than anything.
Greg’s Airbag is a close second, design-wise again, because it takes chances and wins! It’s asymmetrical, and yet symmetrical–that is, it’s created using a grid-system, but it’s not completely “boxed in.” It’s very thoughtfully designed to draw your eye towards different sections with its simple graphics (styled but sophistically understated) and excellent colour choices. Also, it does a good job of being readable, too. :-)
Cameron is next on my list because he is again, an obvious designer. His print influences show on his website. Who doesn’t like his Wicked Worn look series? I would have placed him higher, because I personally LIKE this look a lot, but I didn’t because IMHO, he hasn’t chosen to contrast design choices as much as I think he could have. But the attention to detail,like this horizontal rules, and the headlines, is nice.
Next is Asterisk, and it’s not for lack of liking it! The Victorian pattern is quite nice, and out of all the sites, probably the most readable and most usable. You also use really nice horizontal rules to separate entries. This site is very text-heavy, so aesthetically speaking, that issue needs to be addressed. So far, I don’t think it’s too much of a problem, since the writing is the gold for this site, but in a design-sense, can be a killer. However, it’s very appropriate for its audience, so the design wins. But, it’s not a design that takes enough chances, which is why it’s not higher.
People may be surprised I put DxF as last, but it’s certainly not least. I put it here because I’m really not that pleased with his latest design. It’s OK, it’s simple, it does its job, but it’s not great. I like his use of colours, but the header is a little lost and doesn’t balance as correctly with the content section. I’m also not thrilled with his navigation which is kind of meh. I think that he went too far with the bevels and drop shadows when he should have continued a muted and clean style. And for some reason, I’m overwhelmed by all the serif use for the text, especially in the sidebar. I think it’s because there’s not enough SIZE contrast of the text to delineate what are the important sections and what isn’t.
So in conclusion, really, I think the best designs are the ones with the best working harmonies and contrasts, and those designs that don’t find that are ranked lower–in my biased design eyes.
*takes a deep breath* OK, nobody kill me. ;-)
Posted on September 10, 2004 08:42 AM | #
47. Pawel Knapik said:
Nundroo.com in my opinion is the best of these layouts. And I had no problem to choose this one, I like it a way more than other examples. It would be hard for me to evaluate which one I like second, third and so on.
Why nundroo? To be honest: I like to use some similar elements/concepts/techniques in my layouts :) and Nundroo makes me feel like I couldn’t do this as well as he does. This layout looks like one I’d like to have in my portfolio ;)
Airbag looks like few things mixed together without any reson. My eyes don’t know where to stop.
DesignByFire - Nice composition, but… I hate the orange sidebars! i need to resize my browser’s window to read the text comfortable ;)
CarmenMoll - Really nice. I like all the little graphical pieces. Not my choice only because I prefere simpler, cleaner… just another layouts.
Asterisk - I like the way decoration is balanced here. Simple geometry plus that pattern background are great, and reading is really a pleasure. The only thing it doesn’t have to be my choice is “that something” which I can’t define.
BTW: When we (my company and me) are making concept layouts, i.e. three proposals for one client, everyone of us thinks that the other two projects are much better than his own, so it’s similar situaton as we have here: author of an examle layout says that his is the worst one, and another author says the same.
I think that aesthetics is very important, but user doesn’t see it untill he’s found the information (especially when he came from a search engine). When the website is interesting and he stays for a while, he starts to look at the graphical design that surrounds the information he found.
When I started to work as webdesigner, graphics was the first (and almost only) part I wanted to create. I used to look at website like it was an image and its purpose was to enjoy MY eyes. It didn’t take long to change the way I used to work, few commercial projects was enough to realise that my client wants to provide some content to his target, and my job is to make it possible, then usable, comfortable, and attractive.
Posted on September 10, 2004 11:59 AM | #
48. daniel harvey said:
Wow. I just read through all the comments. Sweet muscular Jesus, would you look at the time! :)
My aesthetic tastes run more spartan than many of the designs chosen. I’m a sucker for clean, elegant designs with room to breathe. Wide columns and whitespace. A spark of color and/or grey-tones to focus aspects of the page. I prefer typorgraphic treatments that do the heavy lifting rather than hectic or busy graphical cues.
That said, I’m certainly not against a dramatic flourish here and there. Small iconic elements, specialized rules, etc. Baroque ain’t ba-roken after all.
With that in mind I’d have to say that Airbag and Authentic Boredom map to my visual design preferences a bit moreso than Asterisk and Nundroo. All of them more than the current iteration of Design by Fire.
Even with that assesment and within my own sort of rubrik of taste outlined above I think each design has strong elements going for it:
Airbag’s use of whitespace
AB’s stylish and opulent headers and rules
Asterisk is somewhere in the same space of AB and Nundroo with it’s large headers, nice chunking, and deco rules.
Nundroo’s larger than most text headers and visual chunking in the posts
DbF generous column widths and appealing image rich sidebar
Despite all that (and this goes a little off-topic) I’d have to say I find Asterisk easier to read than either Airbag or Authentic Boredom. My eye keeps tracking back toward the center from sheer force of habbit and muscle memory on Airbag despite the right postioned content space. The “wicked worn” look of AB gets a touch hard to read at times. I’m not sure what it is but maybe the contrasts just aren’t high enough in the grays. I dunno.
For that matter Asterisk is also easier for me to read than Nundroo and Design By Fire as well. The tiling on the former is too excited that it distracts my eyes as I read and well… the orange is retnal burning at the latter.
Keith, any chance you’d consider a summary of the results at some point as an update to this post or a new one? I think there could be a lot to glean from it.
Posted on September 10, 2004 10:59 PM | #
49. ssp said:
While all the sites you mention look nice, I’m not blown away by any.
The all-so-subtle ‘all white and a little bit of grey’ design seems pretty standard these.
And what’s the worth of style if the usability is low? All of the sites (but yours) use 1/4 to 1/3 of the screen height for their logo or something equally useless. That won’t impress me. The boredom site is particularly bad in this respect as I had to use the horizontal scrollbar to be even able to read the main text. Not acceptable.
Posted on September 11, 2004 01:28 AM | #
50. Casey Ontiveros said:
Out of all the designs presented here the one that grabs my eyes and pull them towards the content is Asterisk. The deeper purple in contrast to the white really makes the content stand out. With the light, almost vague purple on the side bar fade enough into the background.
Visually, I like Airbag. The header alone is enough to just sit there and look at it all day. But the Longboard area takes a visual precedence over the content. Which is odd, because I didn’t even notice myself reading the oddities and bits before jumping back up to the top of the page to read the content.
Now where Airbag’s large header works, Design by Fire bug some for some reason. The logo is great, the quote with what looks to be a coffee mug stain is pretty visually nice. I really do like it. But the amount of white space bothers me for some reason. The orange all around is great draw to the content itself.
Nundroo, I like the visual elements on a Wintel machine more than I like it on a Mac. The overall design is darker and it’s enough of a distinction to make the world of a difference. What looks like a simple visual interface has more to it on second and third glances. The background as well as the tabs at the top of the page, all nicely done.
Athentic Boredom is the same as Nundroo, it looks better on a Wintel machine. The main content background is visible. While on a Mac it is almost hinted at.
Posted on September 11, 2004 11:17 AM | #
51. Ryan Saghir said:
Airbag. Greg’s has the most direction out of the bunch. A general overall concept that you can identify without a second thought. Not that the others don’t have this - not at all. Authentic Boredom runs at a very close second. But Airbag has a unifying thought behind it with a solid vision.
Posted on September 11, 2004 05:00 PM | #
52. chet said:
I like Airbag because of the color of the main image, and because the shape is different from other sites. I don’t like the colors in the other sites as much, except for nundroo, which I find everything too small.
Posted on September 14, 2004 04:02 AM | #
53. Darren said:
I guess most people replying are professionals, I’m just a dabbler interested in learning more really.
I feel AirBag is the best looking but the layout is poor in my opinionm the text I feel should be line with the main image and more central.
I feel this one is 2nd best, The reason I dislike the others is that there is little distinction between background and content area in that both background and content area are “busy”.
That alone I feel makes the difference between them.
Posted on November 8, 2004 11:45 AM | #
Comments are now closed