Why is website design so awful today, generally?

[MacBH928]

why do software programmers make bad design/UX? is it bad taste? carelessness? or complete idiocy?

I have seen website/apps that are pleasure to use and others that are complete horror. From a non-programmer POV I thought writing the code was the tough part.

 

[ghanwani]

why do software programmers make bad design/UX? is it bad taste? carelessness? or complete idiocy?

I have seen website/apps that are pleasure to use and others that are complete horror. From a non-programmer POV I thought writing the code was the tough part.

Unless you’re just copying someone else’s design, UI design is not easy. Most would benefit from just copying.

Aside from that much of the web is dead sites. Chances of response from an email through average business website is 50% in my experience.

In India, most businesses online presence is through WhatsApp!

 

[Nermal]

why do software programmers make bad design/UX? is it bad taste? carelessness? or complete idiocy?

I have seen website/apps that are pleasure to use and others that are complete horror. From a non-programmer POV I thought writing the code was the tough part.

As a developer, I typically make one of two kinds:
1. The ugly but logical kind. Everything is where it "should" be, but it won't necessarily look pretty.
2. The kind where the marketing department has been involved. It probably looks nice, but good luck finding some of the features.

 

[ghanwani]

As a developer, I typically make one of two kinds:
1. The ugly but logical kind. Everything is where it "should" be, but it won't necessarily look pretty.
2. The kind where the marketing department has been involved. It probably looks nice, but good luck finding some of the features.

As with all kinds of design, there's a 3rd kind which is looks nice and is also easy to use, but that takes some thinking and good dose of inspiration.

 

[MacBH928]

Unless you’re just copying someone else’s design, UI design is not easy. Most would benefit from just copying.

Aside from that much of the web is dead sites. Chances of response from an email through average business website is 50% in my experience.

In India, most businesses online presence is through WhatsApp!

I am not sure why UI is difficult but by now most things have developed enough to have a standard of usage like browsers, shopping site, and word processors.

not sure what you mean the web is dead, most popular companies still have websites and although many people use the apps I still find the web versions is superior in everyway.

I think there is a reason people still browse the web on desktop over their iphone.

As a developer, I typically make one of two kinds:
1. The ugly but logical kind. Everything is where it "should" be, but it won't necessarily look pretty.
2. The kind where the marketing department has been involved. It probably looks nice, but good luck finding some of the features.

If its easy to use but ugly its a lesser issue, but many times you bump into both. Ugly and difficult to use. There is a games emulator called RetroArch. Its ugly and navigating it is horrific although its suppose extremely powerful and capable.

basically what @ghanwani said, why can't we have both? Steve Jobs whole motto was around this. MacOS, iApps, iOS, the ipod. A combination of form+function.

There is a reason I use MacOS and not Windows. Its just more pleasant to use.

 

[ghanwani]

I think there is a reason people still browse the web on desktop over their iphone.

In a country like India, almost everyone has a mobile phone and almost no one has a laptop/desktop. Just like how people set up shop on ebay/etsy, in India they do it on WhatsApp. Corporations create websites, but small businesses seldom have a web presence.

 

[MacBH928]

In a country like India, almost everyone has a mobile phone and almost no one has a laptop/desktop. Just like how people set up shop on ebay/etsy, in India they do it on WhatsApp. Corporations create websites, but small businesses seldom have a web presence.

I can't argue that apps are more popular, businesses need to be where the customers are. I find working with an app much more restricting but the business has to please the customer and if masses want to use an app then an app it is.

Personally, I do not understand people who use their phone for everything. The screen is too small and the apps are too restricting. I heard some people watch movies and tv shows on their phones. yikes!

 

[Akrapovic]

I think there is a reason people still browse the web on desktop over their iphone.

Some people. It's been a 50/50 split of mobile vs desktop (mobile includes tablets) for about 5-6 years or so.

 

[dmccloud]

Thanks to the mobile first mantra. I hate that new style tsn. ca/nhl used to be my goto hockey website but since the re design I'm visiting it less and less.

Why not have one site optimized for a desktop and one for mobile? Like it used to be

With the proliferation of CSS and responsive design, it is easier to build one version of a website that can adapt to the screen size (viewport) than it is to build multiple versions for each device type. It's less of a mobile-first approach than it is a "one size fits most" approach.

 

[Akrapovic]

"Why not build two websites rather than one?"

You answered your own question. You have to double the development costs.

 

[Nermal]

You shouldn't have to build two sites anyway. The site shouldn't care one whit whether it's running on a desktop, a phone, a TV or a toaster. A browser is a browser. By all means, make things like menu bars "collapse" when there isn't enough horizontal space for them, but there's no need to redesign the entire site for different browsers.

But that relies on people actually planning and creating a site that doesn't make assumptions, and try getting the marketing department to agree...

 

[Boyd01]

I'm the developer of a mapping web app. On a phone, I want it to behave like a handheld GPS device with big buttons and design elements that make sense on small screen. It should be a web app that can be installed on the home screen and run in its own window separately from the browser, just like a native app. I also want the interface to change when you switch between landscape and portrait modes. For example, you're likely using portrait mode and holding the phone in your hand if you're on foot. But in a vehicle, you may want to mount the phone on the dashboard in landscape mode. This requires a somewhat different interface to make the best use of a small screen. You will likely be using the phone's GPS to show your location.

But on a computer, I want to make the most of a larger screen and I use smaller buttons and menus that take advantage of the precision of a mouse. You probably won't use the GPS function on a computer. The desktop user interface can show more than one window at a time, as opposed to a phone where the full screen is generally needed to fit all the content. For example, the "help" button opens a full-screen window in the mobile version. In a computer, the screen splits with the help file on one side so you can refer to it as you use the site.

I used to have separate sites for desktop and mobile use but that was a lot harder to maintain and was confusing. For example, if somebody shares a link on their phone, I don't want it to only open in the mobile version of the site. The same links should open regardless of your device and your user preference should determine the interface style. Doing all this in a single site is still very complex (lots of conditional code, based on the device preference) but it's still easier than maintaining two separate sites.

I also have a couple advanced functions on the desktop version that aren't available in the mobile version because they just don't adapt well to a small screen. One of them uses webGL to create an interactive 3d terrain model from LIDAR data. That just crashes on all the mobile devices I've tried (presumably due to the memory and graphics demands) so that function isn't available on phones.

Now, my site is just a "labor of love", I'm not selling anything and don't have to please a marketing department. Of course, I also don't make any money. 🤣 But I'm enjoying the challenge, learning a lot and (from a purely selfish point of view) it also gives me the kind of site that *I* want but nobody else has developed.

 

[Tozovac]

@Boyd01, that's a great post detailing some of the real-world issues that could lead to what I consider to be "decreased function" in many of today's websites, apps, and operating systems.

Can you point to/share your site/app?

Instead of creating something that works really well for a certain piece of hardware, one must sometimes sacrifice focused usability with economic practicality.

It's sad whenever that results in the "technology getting in the way" (of efficiency/intuitiveness), and could possibly be excused as an unfortunate reality of "today's economy/world."

However there are still many design decisions that have nothing to do with the above while also and which are still used pervasively, I assume to keep up with the Joneses and ride the wave of certain fads that have yet to die off and make the way back to when interfaces seemed more about "what works" rather than "to look a certain modern way..."

Things like:

• return to obvious differentiation between "actionable" vs. "info" (no more "text as buttons")
• return to smart use of shading, color differentiation, borders (no more all-white monochromatic interfaces where the content & controls blend imperceptibly together, especially when different "families" of controls on the screen all look the same shade of white
  • Subtitle: if all-white/monochromatic is so great, why did Dark Mode appear?
• return to interface design that smartly uses intuitive visual cues (i.e., kill flat design finally. And re-hire the thiple-threat UI folk who are 1) good programmers, 2) experienced in UIs, and 3) true artists who use more than just Microsoft Paint to design icons and interfaces.... And, stop with this "neumorphism" red herring nonsense. Maybe neumorphism is a more palatable word to those short-sighted folk for whom saying "skeuomorphism" gives them the shakes... Neumorphism is mostly just unintuitive, monochromatic flat design with a few extra shadows
• return to efficient websites focusing on efficient communication to the user (no more hero image/videos on a page that's meant to relay data/info to the user and is not specifically meant to entertain/wow the user)
  • Subtitle: I'm sick of having to scroll/swipe 25x on any Apple website page introducing a new, exciting product.

 

[Boyd01]

@Boyd01, that's a great post detailing some of the real-world issues that could lead to what I consider to be "decreased function" in many of today's websites, apps, and operating systems.

Can you point to/share your site/app?

Thanks! I wanted to point out some of the things I considered in designing my own site, but I have to be mindful of the MacRumors policy on self-promotion, so I didn't post any links. You'll find one in my profile however.

 

[Nermal]

You shouldn't have to build two sites anyway. The site shouldn't care one whit whether it's running on a desktop, a phone, a TV or a toaster. A browser is a browser. By all means, make things like menu bars "collapse" when there isn't enough horizontal space for them, but there's no need to redesign the entire site for different browsers.

Revisiting this in the context of the post below it...

The spanner in the works is when it's a "web app" rather than a "web site", and the line between the two can be very blurry. If the site is supposed to "emulate" a native (e.g. phone) app, then by all means make it look and behave like an iOS app on iOS and an Android app on Android, etc. My post was all around the context of "informational" sites, like the ones in the good old days

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Revisiting this in the context of the post below it...

The spanner in the works is when it's a "web app" rather than a "web site", and the line between the two can be very blurry. If the site is supposed to "emulate" a native (e.g. phone) app, then by all means make it look and behave like an iOS app on iOS and an Android app on Android, etc. My post was all around the context of "informational" sites, like the ones in the good old days

Not sure that I follow how that makes a difference to building multiple versions? Just use dynamic styling with the same website to provide that experience. Whether it is an informational site or not makes any difference.

 

[Tozovac]

Thanks! I wanted to point out some of the things I considered in designing my own site, but I have to be mindful of the MacRumors policy on self-promotion, so I didn't post any links. You'll find one in my profile however.

Thanks, I'll look for it.

On the topic of Awful Web Design and "change for the sake of change"...I find macrumor's search function's "screen-jump" to be a great example of awful website design:

It's completely unnecessary and actually anti-function because it's

1) distracting and jarring, especially when not expecting it
2) it forces you to stop, search for where to type, and then refocus your attention while
3) losing the ability to see what was on the screen before initiating the search. Very often, my starting a search is the result of something I saw on the screen and wanted to still be able to read/look at while phrasing my search.

Put another way: it adds no value I can think of other than: it made a marketing person feel happy that the site introduced something new, and/or it kept a designer busy and involved on something for a few weeks.

The last thing I want when performing something on the screen is for an unexpected screen jump.

This is along the lines of how the iPad OS used to dim and blur the screen when you went to change brightness, completely losing the ability to see what you were viewing before which needed a brightness change, only to now not be able to see what you were looking at and then being unable to fine-tune your brightness change.

Or Microsoft Office 365's "Backstage" blasphemy, where the screen completely jumps when you go to save or open a file. On top of that, the folder navigation in Backstage is just gawdawful to boot, forcing you to click a few times to get to the "normal" Microsoft file explorer/browser window.

@Boyd01 @Nermal If you happen to agree and have any ability to share the word, please mention how awful the MR search function is in the non-Forum main-page area!

 

[Boyd01]

@Boyd01 @Nermal If you happen to agree and have any ability to share the word, please mention how awful the MR search function is in the non-Forum main-page area!

You could start a thread about this in the forum feedback section if you want to call it to the attention of the staff.

Site and Forum Feedback

questions, suggestions, & comments about the site or forums; MacRumors announcements

forums.macrumors.com

 

[Tozovac]

You could start a thread about this in the forum feedback section if you want to call it to the attention of the staff.

Site and Forum Feedback

questions, suggestions, & comments about the site or forums; MacRumors announcements

forums.macrumors.com

Thanks I just did.

 

[Nermal]

Now Google's trying to control everything. When do we get to replace the Web with something better?

Edit: The developers have provided some more information. Apparently this is supposed to be optional, with the system forcing developers to support users who have opted out:

We had proposed a hold-back to prevent lock-in at the platform level. Essentially, some percentage of the time, say 5% or 10%, the WEI attestation would intentionally be omitted, and would look the same as if the user opted-out of WEI or the device is not supported.

This is designed to prevent WEI from becoming “DRM for the web”. Any sites that attempted to restrict browser access based on WEI signals alone would have also restricted access to a significant enough proportion of attestable devices to disincentivize this behavior.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

I quite like that. Sadly due to the work I do I come across so many people being scammed. This can greatly help those that don’t know how maintain integrity in their systems. And also reduce fraudulent claims. And even the playing field when online gaming, especially where money is at stake.

I can understand and appreciate the objections from some, but on the otherhand surely having good working secure services against a known configuration is a good thing.

 

[MacBH928]

I do not understand it but isn't this the same as the SSL lock thing in the browser URL?

honestly, for government and "official" online dealings there should be some sort of a walled-garden browser/app . Everything is now done online through a browser. Its a wild west and even as a very computer literate person using the internet for 25+ years I am starting finding it difficult to keep up with all the securities, passwords, 2FA, emails, and making sure the files you transfer and apps you are using are official and safe

 

[Nermal]

"Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network." - Tim Berners-Lee

The Web was always intended as an open platform. Google's proposal seems to be trying to authenticate that the browser hasn't been "tampered" with. How do you authenticate an open source piece of software? The end customer has the right to modify the browser as they see fit, and it should be none of the site's business whether the customer has done so.

If you want a separate environment for certain tasks then that's fine, as long as it's a separate environment. The concern here is that the big IT companies are trying to mould the open Web into something it's not supposed to be.

Edit: Or, as The Register put it:

Those in the technical community who have expressed alarm about the proposal argue that the web should not be brought under a permission-based regime, where a third party renders judgment on the worthiness of users – without consultation, based on opaque criteria.

 

[Akrapovic]

The Web was always intended as an open platform. Google's proposal seems to be trying to authenticate that the browser hasn't been "tampered" with. How do you authenticate an open source piece of software? The end customer has the right to modify the browser as they see fit, and it should be none of the site's business whether the customer has done so.

This grossly misunderstands what open source software is.

Signatures, developer signing and certificates are still a thing, regardless of if the app is open or closed source. You also do not retain the right to modify published open source software by default. You can contribute to the code base (this is the "open source" part of it), however the ability to modify the software legally falls under the publishing license. It has nothing to do with what open source is.

 

[MacBH928]

"Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network." - Tim Berners-Lee

The Web was always intended as an open platform. Google's proposal seems to be trying to authenticate that the browser hasn't been "tampered" with. How do you authenticate an open source piece of software? The end customer has the right to modify the browser as they see fit, and it should be none of the site's business whether the customer has done so.

If you want a separate environment for certain tasks then that's fine, as long as it's a separate environment. The concern here is that the big IT companies are trying to mould the open Web into something it's not supposed to be.

Edit: Or, as The Register put it:

Big tech will make their sites incompatible with general browsers and will slap a " You have to download Browser X to use this service" . Add Amazon, Google, Netflix, Youtube, Gmail, and a few banks and next thing you know 60% of the market uses the DRM browser now everyone else has to use it

This grossly misunderstands what open source software is.

Signatures, developer signing and certificates are still a thing, regardless of if the app is open or closed source. You also do not retain the right to modify published open source software by default. You can contribute to the code base (this is the "open source" part of it), however the ability to modify the software legally falls under the publishing license. It has nothing to do with what open source is.

What about forked ones? I think there is open source and then three is FREE and Open Source . I think the free means do whatever you want with it including modifying, republishing, and forking it.