Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why is website design so awful today, generally?
- Thread starter Tozovac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
When you strip out all of the unrequired bumf from that sentence, you're left with a far more simple question. Which is just "Why should I learn?". And the answer to that is, you should always learn. Especially when the other option is shouting at clouds.
Sorry, your logic is so silly and just incorrect. If I’ve had great success with a local dry cleaner for 10 years and the owner decided to completely revamp the cleaning system to something wildly different and supposedly more efficient but resulting in a much worse cleaned product to me, I certainly don’t need to study how to dry clean in order to recognize and voice complaints about a noticeable degrade in resulting function for the services I’d gotten used to. It’s OK, you can joke about the clouds, it’s cute and may come across that way sometime to a person who disagrees with my sensibility and taste towards today’s interfaces vs., say, those before flat design and certain other arbitrary interface redos. But you’re choosing to ignore that I’m hardly the very only person out there voicing dissatisfaction over a few specific things that once worked up pretty darn nicely. I still contain many don’t complain because, basically, some people will pretty much take anything. After all, how else would windows and any android phone have sold.
As for clouds, at least Jony never got his heavy-handed minimalist mitts on clouds. Why should he? They are already white and really simple, there’s not much more for him to flatten, and he certainly couldn’t hide them behind a hamburger, gear, or ellipsis icon.
Actually it is not that silly;
You can objectively measure whether your clothing is cleaner using the new process or not. Just like you can objectively measure whether the new style applications are compliant with accessibility and responsive design standards or not.
What you seem to be arguing for is a subjective analysis where even if your clothes were measurably cleaner, you still argue that they are not due to the different way. It is a personal preference to do things a certain way, not an objective measurement of whether they are better or not. As long as that distinction is recognised, which I still don't get the feeling you do then all is good. ?
Sorry, incorrecto.
Sticking to objective measurements only like counting web hits from certain devices is exactly what got us into this mess of a compromised interface for those of us not working hours on a mobile device often. And sure, maybe said suit looks the same to you objectively, but you are not wearing it and unable to see maybe how noticeably abrasive/stiff and less comfortable it is than before, and even more worn and damaged at the inside seams you will never see as my usage profile for a suit may be vastly different than yours.I just keep hoping this slow return to function over form keeps going!
That just demonstrates to me that you don't understand what is really behind this. I never said to objectively measure this through like counting web hits. I specifically referred to compliance and standards. Counting 'web hits' provides an indication of how large the target market is, it does not provide an objective measurement as to whether the application developed targetting such a market is any good.Sorry, incorrecto.
I just keep hoping this slow return to function over form keeps going!
Sure I agree that if the majority market is mobile, then the experience could be compromised when you aren't using mobile and there is no non-mobile version created. That is is partially economics as in whether it is worth it when there is hardly any userbase then it may simply not be worth the effort.
I don't think the extended analogy works; where did I suggest that objective measurement should be limited to the cleaning capabilities only? I agree that if there is a detrimental effect to wearing the garment then the overall result is negative. Especially if it has a negative and damaging effect on said garment. It seems to be a bit childish to take it to such extremes just to try and evidence you subjective point.
Other than specific use cases I can not see a return to desktop only. But either way, there is an easy solution to all of this; don't use what you don't like!!
I’ve never, ever said I prefer and wish a desktop only interface across devices. If you don’t choose to read my posts fully then we can just keep playing ping pong or actually not.
Pot calling kettle there palI’ve never, ever said I prefer and wish a desktop only interface across devices. If you don’t choose to read my posts fully then we can just keep playing ping pong or actually not.
As we've explained numerous times, there are standard and even regulatory compliance why mobile websites are the way they are. It is to ensure inclusiveness and access by all. As suggested by others you may want to look up and educate yourself on these topics as you still don't seem to acknowledge them.
Pot calling kettle there pal
As we've explained numerous times, there are standard and even regulatory compliance why mobile websites are the way they are. It is to ensure inclusiveness and access by all. As suggested by others you may want to look up and educate yourself on these topics as you still don't seem to acknowledge them.
A few years ago after iOS7 arrived I actually did look up Apple’s rewritten interface guidelines and almost threw up in my mouth at some of the things I read. if I weren’t reading it, I wouldn’t believe it. Honest to God I did look it up. The specific things that caught my eye had to do with focusing on something looking a certain way that just didn’t seem to be very intuitive at all.
Since you obviously know where such requirements are, I will kindly ask if you can point me to any inclusiveness or accessibility requirements for the following
1. Where is it required that a website must have a large hero image or video animation, where after The first or second time a user experienced an artsy hero image/video, it just feels like bloat and wasted space?
2. Where is it required that differentiation between zones or information areas must be kept to a absolute minimum, we are, at its very worst, decreases the ability for intuitive recognition of the content? I.e., faint gray lines, if anything, between information areas such as iOS‘s contact or calendar apps, or instagram’s main feed, such that they are so faint (if there at all) they may will as well not even be there.
3. Where is it said that thin, light gray or light tan font on a bright white background instead of black is a requirement which, at its worst, results in a much reduced function from being awfully hard to read for eyes older than 25 years, especially outdoors?
4. Where is it required that an actionable item it must be limited to a word/text such that it can hardly be discernible from similar text on the page that is not actionable which, at its very worst, results and sometimes overlooking and available function that was hiding in plain site?
5. Where is it required that a website, app, or page should be arbitrarily reworked to white, light blue, medium blue, gray, and medium gray for the Best function and overall experience?
Not all websites or apps follow these poor, now-clichéd IMHO actions. But the worst ones do still, where few did before 2013. Luckily many are slowly reversing back towards function-first and away from blindly following a certain aesthetic-first. notice I’m not picking on responsive design. Responsive design, when not handicapped to be above minimalist clichés, can work well.
Last edited:
You are going straight back into your comfort zone of subjectiveness; i.e. what you like or not. But I'll entertain you.
There is your answer in bold
Again subjective
Now we are getting somewhere, but considering you still don't use the correct terminology despite several on this thread having explained it to your over and over and over again it is clear that you haven't educated yourself on this topic to understand the science behind it.
I'm not providing that education yet again if you want to learn why and where then perhaps read this thread and the many useful responses that were provided.
Any (all?) research regarding accessibility disagrees with you. But as per 3 we've gone over that so many times.
Again totally subjective. It is a branding exercise coupled with accessibility checks, you may not like it but the combination is proven to work.
As you say, in your opinion. I'd love to know who those many are that a slowly reversing back to your stamp of approval for function-first.
I get a kick out of your continually dismissing my reactions to repeated instances of reduced utility stemming from certain interface design elements as “subjective feelings.” How can they be separated? What is “wrong” about using personal preference to desire something that at one time did not result in feelings of frustration? Does one need to be part of an accessibility study to register complaints about an interface?
Last edited:
Come to think of it, one of the big selling points of the original iPhone was its ability to load regular websites. It should have stopped there. But instead, that was followed by an app for every website. And now we have all websites optimized for mobile use making the desktop use suboptimal. And many mobile-optimized websites don't load properly on the mobile!
It's funny how the worst ideas seem to catch on, e.g. flash.
Nowadays there's so much garbage on YouTube. If someone had bothered to put it in writing, I could tell in 10 seconds if it was of interest. Now have to watch for several minutes only to know it's not going to answer my question.
All I use is static html for my website and I disabled the mobile theme for my blog.
Look at craigslist.org. The site doesn't use anything fancy and it "just works". Fast, efficient, and very intuitive.
It's funny how the worst ideas seem to catch on, e.g. flash.
Nowadays there's so much garbage on YouTube. If someone had bothered to put it in writing, I could tell in 10 seconds if it was of interest. Now have to watch for several minutes only to know it's not going to answer my question.
All I use is static html for my website and I disabled the mobile theme for my blog.
Look at craigslist.org. The site doesn't use anything fancy and it "just works". Fast, efficient, and very intuitive.
Last edited:
Any and all, huh?
The article below tells some of us nothing we don’t already know subjectively but does add some objective metrics for what’s been my main point, that today’s flat web/app/OS interfaces are generally harder to use due to uncertainty, causing (for me and many) eye strain, inefficiency, and often frustration. Interesting that this article paints Jobs as the prime culprit of spreading the awfulness into Apple. it also points to the Windows Phone whose interface I thought was gawdawful amateurish from the very start. As I’ve said often, it was clear Apple was once the differentiated leader in interface design, producing interfaces that just worked because they were designed with that time-tested methods in mind. Then Microsoft and Google tried to come up with something similar but had to be different enough because outright copying then-best-in-class Apple wasn’t an option. Their results always appeared to be an amateurish assortment of flat design compromises. But as they were followers, forced differention was their only choice. Now the insane are running the asylum. I have always blamed Jony Ive maybe it was also from Steve’s influence too? So sad.
Summary: Flat interfaces often use weak signifiers. In an eyetracking experiment comparing different kinds of clickability clues, UIs with weak signifiers required more user effort than strong ones.”
Flat UI Elements Attract Less Attention and Cause Uncertainty
In an eyetracking experiment comparing different clickability clues, weak and flat signifiers required more user effort than strong ones.
Of course, it’s more than just a scarcity of button-looking buttons. The issues are the move away from clear, context-defining elements and the deliberate veering away from what’s natural into forced reinvention for yet-proven-to-me gains beyond scratching the minimalist itch of those in charge at the time. Using faint grey lines in place of clearer-defined boxes or zones for smart differentiation, shortening multiple long text strings on a screen with ellipses in order to have a clean space that only results in difficulty discerning between the text strings, hiding frequently-used functions under hamburgers that results in more uncertainty and additional work to perform simple tasks that used to require one obvious click. Just like how a light that shut off turns a bright room dark or gray, gray has always signified and been used for “not available.” The Hertz Rent-A-Car example on in that article displays this well, where grey is clearly unselected in the good example while the multi-yellow example is vague. The decision to make different shades of minimalist, “clean-looking” gray correspond to actionable items instead of unselected or non-available has been an issue since day one for usability.
Yadda yadda yadda, comfort zone stuff. Except some science agrees with me and others.
”Designs with weak clickability signifiers waste users’ time: people need to look at more UI elements and spend more time on the page, as captured by heatmaps, average counts of fixations, and average task time. These findings all suggest that with weak signifiers, users are getting less of that feeling of empowerment and decisiveness. They’re experiencing click uncertainty.”
Another interesting article, although by the same group.
Long-Term Exposure to Flat Design: How the Trend Slowly Makes Users Less Efficient
Clickable interface elements with absent or weak visual signifiers condition users to click and hover uncertainly across pages — reducing efficiency.
I’m tired of feeling like a rat randomly looking for food.
“Users are forced to explore pages to determine what’s clickable. They frequently pause in their activities to hover the mouse over elements hoping for dynamic clickability signifiers, or click experimentally to discover potential links.
This behavior is analogous to the behavior of laboratory rats in operant-conditioning experiments: if a rat gets a food pellet at random intervals after performing a specific action, the rat will keep doing that action in the hope of getting fed again. Similarly, users have discovered that clicking elements that don’t have strong signifiers sometimes works. Like the lab rats, users will stick to random clicking as long as they get rewarded from time to time.
Even though users are mostly able to find their way through interfaces with this exploratory behavior, they’re still being forced to do extra work and are being distracted from their primary goals without gaining any tangible benefit.”
Last edited:
Decreased usability resulting from unnecessarily overly-simplified functionality is at their very heart of what I consider to be awful website design.
And now Facebook is plunging into “improving” by simplifying and taking things away. “Cleaner” and “more white space.” Because, replacing smartly-organized material with more do-nothing white space is better because.................?
Keep it up Tozovac.
I haven't read all 16 pages - but I've yet to read a view to disagree with.
Web Design has become 5h1te.
1) HUGE screenfilling pictures -99% utterly pointlesss - conveying nothing of merit (certainly not the fabled 1,000 words).
They just get in the way - forcing scrolling i.e work
The BBC (and other news) used to have a list of maybe 10 headlines - all in the same panel - inviting us to choose our interest.
Now they insert so many photos - oversized - that we have to scroll past unwanted stuff - and navigating back up the long scroll to our 2nd choice is guesswork
2) Hidden or disguised navigation
What happened to distinguishing active links from passive text - with colour, borders, shading, gradients - visual "buttons" ?
3) GREY TEXT EVERYWHERE - ranging from just about readable (but not ideal) to unreadable.
What is wrong with Black ?
Please show me a site with "too black" text.
Worse, grey is almost always on acres of glaring white background (even with screen brightness adjusted) ....
4) And the endless scrolling - which is extra WORK.
Caused by empty white space everywhere - apparently deliberately - partly by excess space between lines - and oversized text - and partly from space around elements.
Mostly designers defend this with "aesthetics" rather than some supposed fucntional improvement.
Yesterday, a finance site had links to its new pages. Aside from grey text and other design annoyances, the text was clearly larger.
Yet on old pages, text was fine - even when zooming out to 80%.
Why larger ??? Who is reading a barge pole's length away ???
5a) Designing for mobile - first and last. Desktop Users get stuffed !
This same finance site had the new page, squeezed into a narrow central column - forcing more scrolling - while leaving huge empty white space either side.. Why ???
5b) Responsive sucks.
When I resize my window - to use a document alongside - I do not expect:
i) Page content to reshuffle
ii) Menu/Navigation to disappear. (too often it does)
We are told that Responsive is supposed to detect the Device.
It doesn't. It detectd the Viewport "Window size".. SO STOP CLAIMING TO DETECT THE DEVICE.
5c) When a User selects "Desktop VIew" - give it to him / her.
Apparently some Designers don't like Visitors to choose their own viewing style. Something about artistic integrity ?
The web is primarily functional. Please keep your "art" in galleries.
6) Flat and Minimalist Design Sucks.
i) It impairs navigation - by reducing colour, texture and depth. Exploration is harder.
ii) It is dull and unviting. Exploration is unappealing.
iii) Flat is lazy - like minimalist furniture, it lacks craftsmanship, is a con on the consumer, "sold" by snake-oil salesmen.
Borders help distinguish between content and navigation.
Borders around clickable areas help aim.
Lack of borders means repeated clicking to find the active spot - or unwanted clicking away.
Will Web Designers ever again design for function - rather than peer approval ?
Rant Over
I haven't read all 16 pages - but I've yet to read a view to disagree with.
Web Design has become 5h1te.
1) HUGE screenfilling pictures -99% utterly pointlesss - conveying nothing of merit (certainly not the fabled 1,000 words).
They just get in the way - forcing scrolling i.e work
The BBC (and other news) used to have a list of maybe 10 headlines - all in the same panel - inviting us to choose our interest.
Now they insert so many photos - oversized - that we have to scroll past unwanted stuff - and navigating back up the long scroll to our 2nd choice is guesswork
2) Hidden or disguised navigation
What happened to distinguishing active links from passive text - with colour, borders, shading, gradients - visual "buttons" ?
3) GREY TEXT EVERYWHERE - ranging from just about readable (but not ideal) to unreadable.
What is wrong with Black ?
Please show me a site with "too black" text.
Worse, grey is almost always on acres of glaring white background (even with screen brightness adjusted) ....
4) And the endless scrolling - which is extra WORK.
Caused by empty white space everywhere - apparently deliberately - partly by excess space between lines - and oversized text - and partly from space around elements.
Mostly designers defend this with "aesthetics" rather than some supposed fucntional improvement.
Yesterday, a finance site had links to its new pages. Aside from grey text and other design annoyances, the text was clearly larger.
Yet on old pages, text was fine - even when zooming out to 80%.
Why larger ??? Who is reading a barge pole's length away ???
5a) Designing for mobile - first and last. Desktop Users get stuffed !
This same finance site had the new page, squeezed into a narrow central column - forcing more scrolling - while leaving huge empty white space either side.. Why ???
5b) Responsive sucks.
When I resize my window - to use a document alongside - I do not expect:
i) Page content to reshuffle
ii) Menu/Navigation to disappear. (too often it does)
We are told that Responsive is supposed to detect the Device.
It doesn't. It detectd the Viewport "Window size".. SO STOP CLAIMING TO DETECT THE DEVICE.
5c) When a User selects "Desktop VIew" - give it to him / her.
Apparently some Designers don't like Visitors to choose their own viewing style. Something about artistic integrity ?
The web is primarily functional. Please keep your "art" in galleries.
6) Flat and Minimalist Design Sucks.
i) It impairs navigation - by reducing colour, texture and depth. Exploration is harder.
ii) It is dull and unviting. Exploration is unappealing.
iii) Flat is lazy - like minimalist furniture, it lacks craftsmanship, is a con on the consumer, "sold" by snake-oil salesmen.
Borders help distinguish between content and navigation.
Borders around clickable areas help aim.
Lack of borders means repeated clicking to find the active spot - or unwanted clicking away.
Will Web Designers ever again design for function - rather than peer approval ?
Rant Over
Last edited:
Rant Over
Hardly a rant. Just truth being spoken.
I have been waiting for 7 years to hear or read one concrete example of why (and I'll generalize) "reducing the obviousness" of interface cues that previously promoted intuitive and almost instantaneous understanding/recognition was for an improvement in function and not just a change in appearance. Nobody can provide a solid answer because the changes are not better as a whole when considering the functional trade-offs. They were just to look different, catering to a crowd that needed something new and a few minimalist design "experts" willing to oblige. The proof in the reduction of function manifests itself in accumulated micro-pauses due to uncertainty as well as having to tap/click 2-3x to enact something that used to take 1 click. Those micro-pauses just start to add up to accumulated frustration from those of us who can't help but notice.
Flat design vagueness, small tap area text-as-buttons, low contrast light grey text on a sea of white, burying/hiding functions off-screen, vertical-heavy scroll fiestas just to take in what a given screen is providing...how are any of those functionally better than "before?" Nobody can answer.
Stay safe everyone.
Last edited:
Well summarised.
And another (not mine)
"How is it easier to navigate in a uniform, snowy landscape than one with a variety of colours and depth ?"
Well for that matter, why do the top and bottom menu bars for certain apps need to be a faint gray and blend into the central material that’s typically blanketed in a sea of white. I read one excuse when iOS 7 came out that it was to not distract the user, and allow them to focus on the main content. Ironically instead, it confuses the user who Nice to spend a little more focused Nice to spend a little more focused attention to discern the controls for manipulating said central content.
It came from me. I started it, and it’s still very relevant today. It is “therapeutic” for me to rant every once in a while as well as connect with others who see the obviousness and are willing to talk about it. Just biding my time as websites and operating systems slowly return to focusing on function first.
[automerge]1586020495[/automerge]
Even Macrumors’ mobile side lazily uses the … Icon to bury frequently used functions. Hitting the “...” ellipses icon doesn’t present multiple options, it only presents one. The edit option. So why not just show edit instead of hiding it?
Also notice no default frame or shading around the inserted image, making it awfully confusing at first glance to know what is pasted in versus typed. Instead, it’s more of the the minimalist, white as possible theme. This too has seemed to be a shift in Microsoft office apps, we are inserting some thing requires an extra step to add a frame to add context and definition to something inserted versus something typed. I Instagram’s mobile app is the pits, where it’s not Also notice no default frame or shading around the inserted image, making it awfully confusing at first glance to know what is pasted in versus typed. This too has seemed to be a shift in Microsoft office apps, where in serving something requires an extra step to add a frame to add context and definition to something inserted versus something typed. Instagram‘s mobile app is the pits, where it’s At all intuitive at times to know what text belongs to what image sometimes.
“Rant” over, be intuitive and be safe!
Last edited:
Visited Lidl today (supermarket) - and parts were a bit like navigating a minimalist website.
So many shelves were empty (virus if anyone looks back and wonders ....) it was harder to find stuff.
Long runs of white shelves - with small black text on the shelf edge - a bit like navigating the snowy landscape.
Absent colour from packages or content, one had to get close and take time to examine shelf labels - instead of a quick visual scan for familiar colours and shapes.
Lidl has an own brand called "Simply".
Plain white labels - with the contents either in red or blue text.
Where it was the only product left on the shelf, close examination was required to identify it.
When shelves are full, one know what the Simply product is - by the colourful package alongside.
Who do minimalist web-designers think they are helping ?
So many shelves were empty (virus if anyone looks back and wonders ....) it was harder to find stuff.
Long runs of white shelves - with small black text on the shelf edge - a bit like navigating the snowy landscape.
Absent colour from packages or content, one had to get close and take time to examine shelf labels - instead of a quick visual scan for familiar colours and shapes.
Lidl has an own brand called "Simply".
Plain white labels - with the contents either in red or blue text.
Where it was the only product left on the shelf, close examination was required to identify it.
When shelves are full, one know what the Simply product is - by the colourful package alongside.
Who do minimalist web-designers think they are helping ?
I sense some tongue-in-cheek along with valid complaints.
What’s maybe funny is, if Lidl or the company making the packaging were to say that an all-white box produces a noticeable reduction in waste or resource utilization as trade-off for reducing the decoration on boxes that are eventually discarded, I could see a valid point to justify any reduced legibility or ease for shoppers.On the other hand, I recall Starbucks changing their typically dark, brown/black coffee-chocolate themed menus to white with light grey and light tan text at one point shortly after the introduction of iOS7. Clearly this was a result of following the design fad which resulted in less legibility for me, I distinctly recall being annoyed because the setting sunlight glare coming in thru the windows made it difficult to read the menu. In the prior 15 years of frequenting Starbucks, I could never recall being annoyed by the ability to read their menu. Or, looking at it more high-level, I can’t recall even “noticing” their menu, so to speak, compared to me “noticing“ their menu this time because it was getting in the way of what used to be a simple, almost thoughtless action, similarly to “noticing” certain iOS and website interfaces that “just get in the way“ often after this move towards white/flat minimalism.
Unlike the high-volume packaging at Lidl, I don’t think I could extend a resource-saving courtesy to the Starbucks menus, similar to how no ink or resources are being conserved by white-washing apps to look so bland and unfinished. It’s all about style and not substance, form not function.
Yeah but did companies ever figure it might mean double the meaningful views?
I'm gettin' sick of OneSizeFitsAll(AndItFitsOnAPhoneOrTablet).
A lot of the same companies that do this sell products that are tailored to customer preference, e.g. cars vs trucks, or square saltines vs oyster crackers or whatever. Yet so many of them won't acknowledge that their potential customers have viewing and computing preferences that affect how a product vendor's online presence is used, or... not used... hello?!
In the big scheme of things at the moment, awful website and app design is pretty low on the priority list, but once COVID-19 passes, we will still be left with some awful user interface fads that have yet to wash away. One thing that strikes fear in the hearts of users like me who greatly appreciate user interfaces designed well the first time and which don’t need much adjustment later, it’s dreaded announcements like this:
![931FC69E-0043-4223-89BF-CA8A2B288296.png]( "931FC69E-0043-4223-89BF-CA8A2B288296.png")
I have a feeling I’m in for a big disappointment, but I hope I am wrong. As an avid YouTube user, there’s not much to complain about at the moment. If things just wind up looking different and with a “cleaner interface” requiring more work to access what used to be right out in front, me not gonna be happy.
I have a feeling I’m in for a big disappointment, but I hope I am wrong. As an avid YouTube user, there’s not much to complain about at the moment. If things just wind up looking different and with a “cleaner interface” requiring more work to access what used to be right out in front, me not gonna be happy.
Facebook is also releasing a "new" design soon. Everything is whiter... more blown-up and spaced out... very cartoon-ey...
It looks silly on a big desktop monitor.
