Aesthetics In Web Design -- Summary
September 13, 2004 | 
24 Comments
Summary: A (lengthy) summary (ahem…rant) of the “aesthetics in Web design” experiment I conducted.
Last week I conducted a small experiment to get some discussion going about the role aesthetic detail plays in Web design. The results weren’t too enlightening, and frankly weren’t much of a surprise to me, but I think worth a quick summary.
I asked folks to tell me why they liked one of five sites (my own, Airbag, Design by Fire, Authentic Boredom and Nundroo) over the others and why. There were a few trends, most folks seemed to prefer Airbag over the others aesthetically, for example, and most of the responses we’re about what I expected them to be.
All of the sites were preferred by at least a few people and in general they were all considered pleasing to the eye. Many people had trouble picking a favorite and some had trouble putting their finger on why they liked one over another. There was also some discussion about why aesthetics were (or weren’t) important. For the complete story, read the comments.
Through all of this some general conclusions came to my mind. These are all my own conclusions and I expect many will disagree with them, as well, I don’t believe there are any rules to how to design for the Web and the exact opposite of these conclusions could be true for some projects.
Aesthetics in Web design are important…
…but only to a certain degree. Probably more important than I like to give them credit, but not the most important part of your overarching Web design effort. It seems that once you reach a certain aesthetic “standard” the details beyond are simply icing on the cake and very subject to subjective interpretation.
No matter what you do—or how much most people like your style, your design skill and your visual details—there will be some people who have a negative reaction to it. To me this just reinforces the idea that it’s more important for Web site’s design to work well and be useful to be a success.
The graphic or visual aspect of your design is not (usually) central to the success of your Web design (once you’ve gotten it to a certain level) anyway.
Obviously this depends largely on the project and audience. Some sites will rely more on graphic design and style than others, but for content driven sites (like the ones used for this experiment) it is the presentation of said content that is most important, even when the major audience is one that appreciates—and expects—a high aesthetic standard.
Aesthetics and Return on Investment (ROI)
One thing I couldn’t help but thinking in all of this is the amount of time, money and effort it seems is spent on things like; choosing a good color, or nailing the right photos or creating illustrations for a Web site. Often times these are the hardest part of a design to gather team consensus on, let alone get buy-off from clients and stakeholders.
This is too bad. In the end the value of graphic design, in comparison to other aspects of Web design like IA and usability and considering their high “cost”, are pretty low. (Unless you’re learning how to become an interface designer.) They should be done right, no doubt, but not at the expense of functionality, proper content display, and the rest—which is, sadly, often the case for various reasons.
There needs to be a balance and because their usually isn’t a balance (for whatever reason) the value of aesthetics in Web design is cheapened when you look at how it should be done. Ideally all these things would always be top notch, as you see in the sites I experimented with. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case.
If you’ve worked on a project that was either slowed way down or involved unnecessary rework because you couldn’t get a stakeholder to buy-off on the aesthetic details you know what I mean. These things are important, but in the end the level of importance placed on them is often much higher than they deserve. I mean, I’ve had perfectly good, totally completed designs go back to square one over the choice of a font that led to rethinking the whole damn thing.
Unless something of this nature will cause the failure of your Web design (and realistically how often is that?) it’s better for everyone to settle on something, even if there are stakeholders (or the designers themselves) who are left unhappy, and move on. If it’s a problem later you can always go back and change it.
Easier said than done, I’m afraid. But it’s too damn bad, really. I’ve seen the negative effect that trying to reach a consensus on aesthetic detail can cause. It’s not pretty and ultimately, not worth the effort. Obviously it’s important to scope this stuff out properly to begin with, and the proper planning and a good creative brief (that your stakeholders will stick to) can keep you out of hot water and make most of these problems irrelevant.
I guess all I’m saying is that this stuff is important, but often “too expensive” to get caught up in. It’s a big part of my job, and I see the initial value, but when you’ve spent hour upon hour in meetings with people who’s time is worth much more than your own, talking about what color to make the tabs of a Web site and virtually nothing else, you know what I’m talking about.
I realize this can be a hard pill to swallow, but lets face it, when you’re a Web designer you have to accept the fact that you don’t have total control or the respect needed to push your decisions through. It sucks, but that’s where we’re often put in this day and age.
Cue Rodney Dangerfield.
More on that, and how to cope with it, later this week.
It’s not print
We designers do have to take some of the responsibility for this unequal value placed on the visual. I meet designers all the time who treat designing for the Web like it’s designing for print, although this is less common than it used to be. With print you may have total control, or at least (some illusion of) shared control with your client. With the Web you have to share that control with your users as well.
We’re learning this, but I feel at times we’ve got a long way to go.
Form *and* Function
I don’t say “form vs. function” because to create a great Web design, you need both. They go hand in hand, at least in my mind. Significant design time should be spent on both form and function and all aspects thereof.
Aesthetic detail usually falls in the “form” part of this discussion and to me it’s a relatively small part of that form. Style and personal preference play a huge part in deciding how a Web site will display visually. In the end there is no such thing as perfect, as it’s too subjective, and if you’re going to spend significant time on something, it should be spent on something that really matters.
The aspects your users really care about.
Aesthetics vs. Function?
There are also many cases where aesthetics and functionality have a hard time mixing. I guess that’s where we get the “vs.” in “form vs. function.” You can’t always design for function and keep it looking great, although I think that should be the goal.
I see this all the time; you add something the users requested, but it conflicts with another visual element in some way. You can’t make both work well so you pull the new feature because your client would rather have a page that looks good than add the new feature.
Stakeholder ego, browser and platform issues and other limitations of the medium seem to constantly be conspiring to make a Web designer’s job a pretty tough balancing act.
No, “user-centered” and all that goes along with it, creates a whole new dimension, one that, apparently, should devalue somewhat the “aesthetic” part (not the form) of design to the Web designer.
Want a great Web design? Concentrate on usability, accessibility, information architecture, layout, and interface design. Graphic design is a subjective battlefield that adds little value at the end of the day and eats up way to much time, effort and money. Unless you’ve got total control, have really good clients, lots of luck or the empowerment to make the final decision on this stuff, you’ll could just be in for a world of hurt.
Ultimately it’s not visual design, or the aesthetic details themselves, that are the problem, it’s the extra weight we, our clients and our stakeholders put on them and the conflict that comes from that weight that makes this stuff so hard to deal with and achieve ROI on.
(For those of you (Nick Finck) who didn’t quite get my sarcasm, the following is supposed to be funny. Sorry for any confusion.)
No wonder Yahoo, Amazon, eBay and other successful sites are so bland. It’s a hard fight to fight, I bet their designers just said, “Screw it! Not worth the bother. Gir! Get me the shredder!”
Wish I could do that sometimes.
Filed under: Web Design
Comments
1. Nick Finck said:
Design is the process of solving a problem. It shouldn’t be about pure aesthetic value. I agree that a lot of corporate sites and such are bland as you put it, but I also think there is a lot of merit to how functional those sites are.
My point is you can easily tip the scale towards functionality or towards aesthetics, but it’s more of a challenge to find balance in the middle there.
It is a fight worth fighting and to say that site’s such as Yahoo!, Amazon, eBay have designers who never tried to make that fight is simply a gross assumption.
Posted on September 13, 2004 07:08 PM | #
2. Keith said:
Nick – Oh God, are you serious? Did you read the whole post, or just skip to the end? Of course I don’t think the designers just gave up. It’s humor, try it some time my man! ;)
I’ve got a whole damn paragraph dedicated to exactly what you say about balance – that’s pretty much the point, really. Thing is, you’d have had to read the rest of the post to get it…I can only do so much for your reading comprehension.
I kid, I kid. But seriously, read the post before you pop off. :)
Posted on September 13, 2004 07:17 PM | #
3. Nick Finck said:
I did. Maybe you should clean up the conclusion?
Posted on September 13, 2004 07:24 PM | #
4. Keith said:
Nick – You read the whole thing and still didn’t get it? I mean with your bit about balance you pretty much reiterated the main point of the post. What didn’t you understand?
Never-mind. You asked for it, I’ll make a quick edit for those who left their funny-bones at work. I guess I can see how my sarcasm might be lost on people. Somehow…
Posted on September 13, 2004 07:36 PM | #
5. Kyle said:
Great summary and decently argued. I can see how there is some room open for intrepretaion here as well. It could change quite a bit based on what exactly your responsibilites on a project is.
I do think most of what you say is valid to a certain extent, but it’s defining that aesthetic standard that’s a grey area.
Also, in defense of Nick, I didn’t get the joke either, but I didn’t read it as an indictment of the designers’ willingness to fight on these issues. Just and exteeme example of how sometimes these aesthetic details (or lack of) don’t effect the success of a site.
Posted on September 13, 2004 07:54 PM | #
6. Conor Hastings said:
Yup Keith I definately have to agree with you here. I personally believe that a web site can and will never be perfect as there will always be somebody having a problem as with something as I found when recently redesigning my blog
Posted on September 13, 2004 07:56 PM | #
7. Keith said:
Conor – Don’t get me wrong (and this says nothing about your site, which looks good to me) I’m not saying that some problems you may have aesthetically aren’t valid. Often the reason for conflict over an aesthetic or visual detail is totally valid and well worth the time spent to get it right.
It’s just that sites often get to a point where bickering over visual and subjective details can be harmful. It’s a fine line and the aesthetic standard (if there is one) is kind of a grey area.
I mean, when does ones opinion cease to matter? I think I’ve got a pretty good sense of good design. I’ve got decent visual design skills and a good eye. But I often disagree with people when it comes to style in Web design. There are sites out there that some folks LOVE that I don’t really like.
Doesn’t make them any less great.
Design starts with goals, and is, like Nick said, about solving problems. Visual design on the Web is a big part of that, it’s just that we often put too much weight into the value of visual design on the Web, usually at the expense of some other thing.
Posted on September 13, 2004 08:10 PM | #
8. Nick Finck said:
Ha! :)
Posted on September 13, 2004 08:15 PM | #
9. T/T said:
I agree with you, but I think it’s funny because in your post about blog design there was talk about how aestethic elements and visual design are the way to help differentiate a common layout.
You’ve shown evidence of that here as well, and very nicely I might add. Don’t be down on GD – it’s a talent that you have. Make the most of it.
Other than that, right on as usual.
T/T
Posted on September 14, 2004 12:37 AM | #
10. Garrett said:
I would put a more in depth comment, but you stole my thoughts almost word for word. I have nothing left to say. Good post.
In my experience, the focus and ROI can get frustratingly disproportionate.
Posted on September 14, 2004 05:28 AM | #
11. Taco John said:
Looking at the section on how some web designers approach web design like print design, I think it’s really closer to industrial design. Industrial design is about making something which looks distinctive, but also gains some functionality (or at the very least doesn’t lose any) through the design.
Posted on September 14, 2004 06:32 AM | #
12. Ryan Saghir said:
I love the point about being stuck in a meeting discussing the site’s tab color ad nauseum.
It’s amazing the amount of criticism that people with no design experience will place on unimportant items. Pick and choose your battles - the color of a button, or the shape of an icon, is not a battle worth fighting.
“Real” design has little to do with aesthetics as a whole, it’s instead usually a series of compromises that the artist has had to deal with.
Posted on September 14, 2004 08:51 AM | #
13. Adrian said:
Exactly!
I have to deal with that all the time at work. I got so tired of it that I finally just had to vent, so I decided to make my personal site how I wanted it. If nobody likes it, tough. It’s for me. You can complain about my designs that I do for work.
Now granted, I tend to go for far simpler layouts at home, and I usually err on the side of clean straight lines with simple colors. At work, it’s a lot different, but that’s my job.
Posted on September 14, 2004 09:28 AM | #
14. David Woodward said:
Many of the sites I’ve designed for clients have been called “boring” by my significant other. None of the clients seem to complain, they like their sites. I think what she wants is more shiny gadgets that don’t do much. I make rollovers on a menu and people say, “wow, thats cool.” But I change the font weight and color on a menu items to help distinguish it a little bit and make the design work better, and nobody says a thing.
I think that aesthetics have a certain subconscious appeal. After all, if they weren’t all that important to the final outcome and perception of the product, why were you in those meetings all the time? If all that really mattered was functionality and aesthetics were just icing on the cake, then why do people who don’t notice functionality care so much about aesthetics?
Posted on September 14, 2004 09:34 AM | #
15. Keith said:
David – The simple answer is that they don’t have any understanding about what makes a successful Web site. Also they often times have a hard time not looking at their Web design as a mirror that represents themselves. As your significant other what sites she likes to use and you might get a different answer.
This is a good way to get past this issue with clients. Many times clients want something that is aesthetically pleasing to them because they can’t look past their own ego. It’s a valid concern and one reason why this stuff is important to some level.
What they fail to realize is that a poorly functioning site is far worse on their image (or brand) than would expect. It’s easier, in my opinion, to get to a site that looks pretty good than it is to get a site that functions great.
Look, I’m not saying it’s not something we as designers don’t have to deal with. I’m just saying it’s too bad that our clients and stakeholders (and some designers) put so much weight on this stuff. We need to educate them to what really adds value to a Web experience (IA, Usability, good web DESIGN), but it’s a hard road to walk.
Posted on September 14, 2004 09:49 AM | #
16. nick santilli said:
i’ll keep this short and simple:
I read RSS FEEDS of the websites where I like the info/content, but don’t care one bit about the ‘design’.
I GO TO AND READ the sites (blogs mostly) where I enjoy the design and layout. I want to have that additional ‘experience’ while reading content from within a design that is aesthetically pleasing to me.
So it’s the site owner’s/author’s choice on how to present their ‘product’, and the user’s choice on how to consume it. RSS feeds give users the option to bypass the actual website (design) altogether. If you like the site, go read there, otherwise just read it through a news feed.
Posted on September 14, 2004 10:49 AM | #
17. M. said:
I read your post and breathed a huge sigh of… I dunno… relief. Or satisfaction. Or something. A kindred spirit at last!
We’ve worked on several projects where no matter how hard we tried, we simply couldn’t budge the client from cussing and discussing colors… images… even font size (for cryin’ out loud) ad infinitum. Argh. It IS frustrating.
You’re absolutely right: educating clients is incredibly important. In my experience, few clients have a clue about what makes a site great… or even good. They don’t understand how people use the web… they don’t get that organizational structure and links are hugely important… they have no idea what stats mean. But they can SEE the visuals, so it’s easy to latch on and tweak aesthetic elements until we’re all ready to go nuts.
I’m launching a blog in the next month or so - e-vangelista.com - that focuses on this very issue. It will be written for non-technical folks who have a role in creating (or developing content for, or redesigning, or updating… you get the idea) their organization’s site. Now all I have to do is figure out how to get the people who should read it, to read it.
In the meantime, keep spreading the good word, Keith. I think you’re right on the money.
Posted on September 14, 2004 10:52 AM | #
18. Arthur! said:
I would like to point out the ‘observer bias’ here. Sites made by usability guru’s will differ very much from sites made by visual designers, due to their different backgrounds. Even though the latter group may design perfectly digestible visual designs, they may not have the knowledge to make it functional or usable too and vv.
I think there is a visible trend towards usability/function, rather than to design. Don’t get me wrong here, design is still very important to make things appeal to us visually, but more and more people are becoming aware of the fact that bad usability can scare your visitors away. Which is - I think - a good thing.
Posted on September 14, 2004 11:17 AM | #
19. Peter 01010 said:
This was a very interesting article, Keith, and I think you have a very clear view of aesthetics and how it fits into the scheme of things. The saying “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is useful to remember. I never see anything visual on a computer screen that comes close to approaching the beauty of nature (although there are some great photo blogs) so that’s perhaps why I am so hard to please and why I wasn’t very positive about the five sites aesthetically. Content-wise they are all good sites and you would get my number 1 vote out of those 5.
Posted on September 14, 2004 01:32 PM | #
20. Adrian said:
Arthur!: You’re absolutely correct. At my work, I had a huge job of educating my report-to seniors (who had no web related anything in their backgrounds) that we needed to make our internal web application that I was building functional before we made it pretty. To some extent form does follow function, but for a lot of things, if it works very well, a lot of people’s concern with how it looks will lessen to some extent. They don’t realize it at first, but once they get a taste first-hand of a web application with a rough look/layout that just flat out works from a functionality point of view, they then start to understand that it’s gotta work before we start becoming concerned with the finer points of detail (like putting the time into it to make it pretty). Making it look really nice but it’s hard to use does drive users away.
Posted on September 14, 2004 01:33 PM | #
21. Rimantas said:
Aesthetics IS important.
The problem is, there was (is?) too much skew into visual side of the web site - as it is only important how does it look like. Well, website is not a painting you are going to hang on your wall - it is something you use. Here comes the usability - but it cannot and should not replace aesthetics, and sometimes these both are directly related.
Think about automotive industry - the look of the car is VERY VERY important for the buyers? Why? I tend to think because we can expect roughly the same usability from all makes, so how does it look (and how does it impress others?) plays a big role there. What do we want from a car - to ride well, to be comfortable and easy to operate and to look good. Some may want more miles per galon too.
When there is little competition funcinality wins (with some exeptions, though).
When there are few products that allow you to do the same (read - have same funcionality), the one which is more usable wins.
When we have few products with roughly the same funcionality and usability - the most aestheticly pleasant wins.
And I wouldn’t be suprised if great visual side will win over some lack in funcionality or usability.
Well, instead of writing all this I should only recommend to read “Emotional design” by Don Norman. Great book and great companion to his “Design of everyday things”.
I’d say these two, “Don’t make me thing” by Steve Krug and a couple of other books should be mandatory reading for anyone seriously looking for web career.
Even if you ar not going to buy this book a sample chapter is available (in PDF format) at author’s site with a very ‘on topic’ title: Attractive Things Work Better. Highly recommended.
Intro about three teapots is worth checking out too.
Posted on September 14, 2004 03:36 PM | #
22. Ethel said:
Hmm. I’m not so sure if this “experiment” of sorts can really give you an accurate depiction of what you may have been looking for. I would say most people who read your site are either web designers, developers, or SOMEthing along those lines…whereas your average non-designer (like moi) probably doesn’t come through here in large quantities to take a poll. I don’t know. The fact that you didn’t find any large data trends might be because your readers all think too hard (or, maybe just a lot–and this isn’t a bad thing) about design. The average web surfer doesn’t. They like what they see and they keep going on with their surfing. Now, if you asked those people which site of your list they liked, and why, then maybe you could get a better idea about design and users because they are your average user. Your conclusions are interesting though, I just don’t neccessarily think they’re based or influenced by a particularly valid poll.
Posted on September 14, 2004 03:38 PM | #
23. Justin Peters said:
I think there’s a neat little parallel between design and writing, music or any other creative endeavour. If you compare a well written essay to one that is poorly written (e.g. awkward language, common errors easily corrected with a quick review of Strunk and White) the difference would be fairly clear and you could make definite suggestions to improve the poorer piece. But with two well-written essays, it pretty much becomes a matter of style, and style will always be subjective.
You could make suggestions on changing airbag, asterisk, DxF or whatever, but I don’t think any would be improvements, just variations. In all these cases the problem solving has already been done and any meaningful criticism that remains is merely aesthetic. But compare airbag to my own site, for instance, and you’d have a lot more room for criticism and suggestions for improvement. Not because one is good and the other sucks, but because one has been refined to the point where there are not obvious problems to be solved and the other is very much a work in progress.
Posted on September 14, 2004 05:47 PM | #
24. Jolynne said:
Keith, you are a wonderful writer and I have gained much from reading your work. You need an editor, however. Please send me your articles before you post them and I will edit them pro bono for grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I want to see you shine as brightly as your talent merits.
Posted on September 16, 2004 10:06 AM | #
Comments are now closed