What Constitutes a 'Bad' Design?

[seaflex]

After a very good reaction to my post 'How do you tell someone their site is bad', I have another question, to take the discussion a step further.

What constitutes a bad design?

Okay, I don't mean the obvious over use of animated gifs etc, I mean the fundamental core of any given website.

For example (I am going to offer my opinion which I know will probably provoke some reaction), I am a graphic designer, who now works in web design, I was trained as a multimedia graphic designer and taught about visual communication, heirarchy and information architecture. So for me a bad design is a page which lacks a strong visual presence, a clear and easy to use structure or is a blatant copy of another site. The page may be technically perfect in terms of html etc, but if it lacks these points, I am afraid I would consider it bad design.

To be honest, as an end user of a site, I don't care about the code behind it - as long as it works when I use it and conveys the correct message.

Dont hold back.

Phil

[Narasinha]

As I have had no formal training in graphic design, that is my weak point in designing a site. So much of what people think is "good" or "bad" in a design is very subjective. Some people don't like particular colors or combinations of colors. Some people don't like navigation on the right, etc. It is difficult to say what would be objectively bad in a design.

Here are some things that in my own opinion, would constitute bad design elements. These are geared more toward commercial or informational sites, as personal sites are generally less restrictive. Confusing navigation
Animated cursors
Unnecessary Java Applets (for rollovers, reflected water images, etc.)
Background music (especially if you can't turn it off!)
Too many different fonts
Too many different colors
Lack of visual contrast between text and background
Sites that block me out because they assume that since I'm not using Internet Explorer, my browser isn't good enough to view their precious pages
And last but not least (admit it, you saw this one coming) Non-standard code (HTML/XHTML)
I have a problem with places that spend thousands developing an amazing site, yet can't be bothered with actually making it conform to standards. This includes sites like Google (truly attrocious HTML) and Hotmail (Beautiful, but where's the DOCTYPE? - too many tables) and Amazon (Ditto, and lose all those the nested tables!).

[davebarnes]

Answers to this and many other questions may be found at http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/dailysucker/.

This is a GREAT website with lots of examples of what constitutes "bad design".

You also get to comment on the "chosen" sites.

,dave

[vwebworld]

Hey Phil,

Boy you like to "stir the pot" and provoke.
But, it keeps us busy :-)

Well, I'm with you... validation..smalidation.
If a site works, is readable from most browsers,
and communicate their intended "message/purpose"
effectively... it's a good site.

Aside from the "obvious" errors with navigation,
animation, fonts, colors, etc...
A bad site to me does not fullfill it's purpose.
It doesn't get me to read on, order, buy, or interact.

But all sites are beautiful in the eyes of the
beholder (or at least the site creator).

~Roland

[Markll]

If a site is well designed and is readable by your target audience then why is validation so imoprtant?

I design mostly in Flash for consistency in presentation. The fact that some people cannot view the site actually helps. In a sense, the accessability resrtictions help to qualify the potential client. If they do not have an up to date system and browser they are most likely not going to be interested in my services anyway.


http://photographicdesign.org

[Owens88]

This is an intelligent topic and has had intelligent replies so far. I will try not to drag it down !

There are obvious sins, some are bad design and some are bad execution. There are some objective aspects (readability, navigation etc.).

Beyond that I do believe that we should have more acceptance of diversity (or horses for courses).
Each site should have both a target market and a target purpose - to preach, to inform, to sell, to declare...

The high tech 'exclusion' tactic can be valid, the attempt to replicate a magazine can be valid (though not for me as a reader). So a bad design is one that fails to attract its target market (or even alienates them) and fails to fulfill its purpose (e.g. an info site that is all headlines and whizz but little content of value).

At least that is what I think !
Cheers

[fastedge]

What makes for bad design? Wow, that's one of those questions where you are better off looking for the opposite. What makes good design? While there are probably thousands of variables that in certain combinations or all by themselves make a site "bad" what makes a site good I think is almost always the same.


Is the site easy to navigate?
Is the color scheme pleasing?
Is the layout not crowded and content easy to find.
Is there enough content about the subject.


I'm sure I have overlooked other point, but right off the top of my head those are the key points.

[aaronmp2003]

Where's the content??? Have you ever been to a site where you get there, and you say, "Okay, where is the meat of this page??" Some sites get so caught up in text links, navigation schemes and affiliate buttons that there is barely any room left on the page for the content!

For me, if I can't identify the content I went to that site for within a few seconds, I'm history.

-- Aaron <~~~~ Tries to be equally critical when evaluating my own site!

[matauri]

If they do not have an up to date system and browser they are most likely not going to be interested in my services anyway.

You have lost me on that remark. Why would someone who doesn't run flash not be interested in your products? As you put it, I have an up to date system & browsers,etc etc....but I am not a fan of large volumes of flash , so you aren't going to lose me because of my system not being up to date. And why would you want to lose customers that dont have up to date systems anyway?


Where's the content??? Have you ever been to a site where you get there, and you say, "Okay, where is the meat of this page??" Some sites get so caught up in text links, navigation schemes and affiliate buttons that there is barely any room left on the page for the content!

For me, if I can't identify the content I went to that site for within a few seconds, I'm history.

I agree totally ! If I go to a site & have to think about where to look or how to navigate around, then its history. I would rather spend the time looking for a better site that had what I wanted to find & I didnt have to look inside the designers psychi to achieve this.

Which goes back to why I hate most flash sites, and especially ones that are entrance pages. Yes that person may do artistic flash designs, but if you are expecting me to know where to click to go further...you have no hope with someone who is not as experienced ! They also do not take into account that the majority of the internet users are still on slow dialup connections.

Which brings me to 'entrance pages'..what a waste of bandwidth! If you are designing correctly you can showcase your talent & show your content on the one page.

In regards to designing to standards... I used to be one of the most fierce opposers to it being a strict practice, until I thought I would have a crack at it. I found that a lot less work was involved onced I got the hang of it, and I found that I was becoming more cross compatible. If HTML is indeed being phased out in favour of XHTML, then by the time it comes my clients will be the winners.

Also dont forget, that website owners are in the sueable market in regards to accessibility. If you are disadvantaging someone from visiting a clients site, then that client can be sued under the discrimination acts in most countries. While I dont agree with that practice, I certainly dont want to be known as the designer that cost my client a law suit. SCOG (Sydney Olympic Games Committee) had to litigate one such case themselves, and had to pay out.

All worth keeping in mind when designing for a client.


Cindy

[ranjan]

Well, I'm with you... validation..smalidation.
If a site works, is readable from most browsers

Sorry but I disagree. Its like saying as long as she's (your woman) beautiful I don't consider how she is at heart.

Sure enough, as she ages and the beauty starts to wear, you realize that if she had a good heart, it would be easier to take care of her.

The analogy holds good to a website. When the novelty of presenting her (your new website) to the world wears out you have to get down to the business of taking care of her.

If your website has a good heart (good clean valid coding), no matter how society changes (read browsers), she is always presentable and with little maintenence stunning!

[vwebworld]

Hi Ranjan,

I was afraid you'd find my post :-)
I respect your talent and knowledge... and
have learned from you at www.total-impact.com .

I actually do agree with you that solid (valid) code
is a plus... and as you say helps as browsers change.

What I was trying to say is, (in my opinion) if
a site is not validated - it does not necessarily
make it a "bad" site.

Thanks, Roland

[matauri]

Sorry but I disagree. Its like saying as long as she's (your woman) beautiful I don't consider how she is at heart.

What a good comparison Ranjan! And so true! :-)

So you strive for the perfect combination, one that you can still bare to look at in years to come & you still want to be married to because its stayed compatible thru life.

And what client wouldn't want that?????


Cindy

[ranjan]

have learned from you at www.total-impact.com

Not as much as I have learnt from you...