Personally, I love the modern style of minimalist design with high-res photos and large, beautiful header fonts, so I disagree completely with the thread title. It's easy on the eyes and makes for clear, simple navigation. What's not to like?
I just can't wrap my head around someone claiming today's web design is ugly, but the past's was not.
I didn't call websites ugly, I do feel they're awful in many instances now in ways that weren't an issue some time "before." (or before iOS7, to be blunt)
My critiques are focused on the loss of function often, for the sake of meeting a certain fashion trend that to me started mostly with iOS7. I say that because with Apple as (still) the undeniable trend-setter that "everyone" tends to follow (sometimes off a cliff), it seemed the issues I noticed started soon after iOS7 landed.
Rather than ugly, I call many of today’s sites unnecessarily trendy and, in many cases, oversimplified by inexperienced designers trying to appeal more to today’s minimalist aesthetic fad than yesterday’s smart focus on efficiency and intuitiveness. When a designer strove to follow functionality trends, some of their weaknesses wouldn't be so apparent. But when a designer strives to follow a certain look, their weaknesses are rather strongly noticed, IMHO.
Like an actor or actress who prioritizes wanting to look and be famous instead of be a great actor first.
As a result, many functions are much less intuitive and less easy to find than they were five or so years ago IMHO, due to some blind adherence to things that feel timely and updated but ultimately have noticeably questionable trade offs.
If you're lucky enough to land on a site which hasn't succumbed to the "mobile-experience-first"aesthetic which renders desk/laptop users having to endure much wasted white space and flat icons, you're too often presented with a "grand entrance" of a large pretty image or movie. A year or so ago (it's been mobile-first updated since then), going to PayPal‘s website or several of the websites of banks where I have an account, I don't need a grand mini movie or well-staged photograph taking up the entire screen instead of the oils-hat way of using the space efficiently and for intuitive usage. It’s as if they're set up for first-time users only who need eye-candy to stay on the site. Like the first time you walk into a new kitchen that was just remodeled. Then, and maybe even the second time that you are introduced to it, it’s OK to take a pause and be given a grand tour of something new and beautiful. Perhaps it’s the owner or the remodeler who wants to take a moment and show you around because they are proud of their work. Everything is clean and put away. You’re not sure where everything is because things are in new locations, buried behind closed drawers, but you take the pause to see something new and then you're soon ready to get down to business. After your second visit, the grand presentation is pretty useless if not downright annoying. Plus the toaster you use every day is behind a cabinet drawer every new day. At today’s sites vs. the olden days of 2012, You now have to click through buried icons/menus to find a function that used to be out in the open, since they were removed in order to have an updated-looking clean aesthetic and not distract from the grand presentation. You often have to click on an hourglass icon to then be presented the search window, which you then have to click in to start typing to be do what you need to do, taking several steps that used to be accomplished in one back when it was function-first you used to click on the search window that was always present at the top of the screen.
This:
Few of us visit websites to admire the beautiful work of the site's designer. We go there to do a task.
I also call "dumb" the all-light-blue (or grey) -on-white flat presentation which is pretty commonplace now, for "updated" websites who change in order to keep up with the Joneses. It's as if everyone's ignored what's been forged into user's brains from the early 90's to early 2010's where anything light blue or grey on plain white used to mean a "dead" website or unselectable option. Now, light blue or grey buttonless text is a function? That's still issue-causing to me, especially when you do land on some site where light blue or grey buttonless text means "not available." Worse, it's frequently light-light-blue or light-light-grey, and often very difficult to read (if not downright impossible outdoors).
Similar to the post a few days earlier about sports scores: Minimalist, somewhat contextual-less, but "new" and updated. And mostly flat, and with a sort-of gradient effect, two fads which haven't died yet.
I know this is all a repeat. But each week I seem to stumble to find something in a new site where I need to get some business done, where what should be out in the open is not nearly as apparent as all the white open space or grand figure/animation.
We may have different thoughts on what we call bad websites. I don't think any of my critiques have to do with preferences or just not liking the looks of what young whippersnappers are doing nowadays. Mine are more about the UIx and a more cumbersome, less intuitive and efficient experience on certain platforms, primarily desktop/laptop or even iPad.
