Filed under: Fugly Friday
Fugly Friday: Can better design help your cause?
The thing about technology is that it isn't inherently good or bad, it's how we choose to use it that makes it so. This has been true since the first humans picked up a bone and fashioned a hammer. Some used it to build, and others to kill. So it is with the web -- except the killing part, maybe. We've seen some great stuff like Google's search engine, Delicious bookmarks and Pandora's music engine. But then there's the low barrier to making web pages, spawning the sort of nightmares you'll find at Alek's Controllable Christmas Lights for Celiac Disease.
Now look, I'm not trashing Alek's work with Christmas lights (personally I love web-controlled lights and the hobbyists who do these light shows are really dedicated) and I'm certainly not saying Celiac disease is a cause unworthy of attention. I only wish Alek hadn't chosen the following things for his site:
- Autoplay MIDI music
- Cutesy javascript cursor follow
- Dense text everywhere
- Wacky fonts from 1996
These are the web equivalents of polyester suits. Cute when worn as a joke, not so cute when used at a serious job interview. Same here: a redesign might bring more awareness to Celiac disease, a tough condition which requires a gluten-free diet.
Ultimately the question becomes one of content vs. presentation. Does poor presentation trump content, or does great content rise above bad presentation? I found a nice summary of this notion from 2006 at LukeW's site:
Many sites with a poor visual presentation remain popular on the merits of their content alone. But does their audience enjoy bumping through the site's awkward graphics and hard to read labels? No, but the personality of the content (it could be high quality, funny, worthwhile, and more) makes the rest bearable. Would their audience be happier if the personality of the presentation matched the personality of the content? Of course.
Perhaps a designer could donate some time to making Alek's site visibly more manageable? Alek's site is already pretty famous, so I can't help but think that a facelift would help his cause.
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Andre said 3:52PM on 3-28-2009
just a comment on your opening statement:
---
The thing about technology is that it isn't inherently good or bad, it's how we choose to use it that makes it so. This has been true since the first humans picked up a bone and fashioned a hammer. Some used it to build, and others to kill.
---
you can't separate the tech artifact (the material piece) from the practices that enable it or the beliefs that empower it. doing so encourages a kind of ethical equivocation that absolves the designers (and even users) from the consequences of using that artifact.
Reply
Victor Agreda Jr said 4:05PM on 3-28-2009
All I'm saying is that you can split an atom to make power for millions or you can split an atom to kill millions. The atoms don't give a damn -- it's the humans who decide which way it goes.
Andre said 4:39PM on 3-28-2009
The atom is actually a really good example. The scientists who developed the atom bomb at the manhattan project were deeply divided over the warlike and the peaceful possibilities of their work. Some argued that the bomb should NEVER be used because of the cost to human life and the ecosphere, while others argued that scientific progress would go on and that they were just "doing it for the science" .
i understand what you're saying, Victor, but at some point you have to hold people responsible for the uses to which their product is put. Weapons are easy to moralize about. Unfortunately, information and communication technologies are not as easy to analyze with respect to intentions of the designers...but the clues are there when you see how people utilize the programs and platforms to do harmful things.
sorry - didn't mean to threadjack your original post. I'm suffering from SxSW induced technophilic fatigue, so i'm a little cranky.
Jason said 7:08PM on 4-07-2009
Hey Victor lighten up.
That site is hilarious.
You want him to have a nice slickly designed site to control Xmas lights and inflatable and deflatable Xmas characters?
I must be out of the loop and while I wasn't looking, Xmas lights that cover your whole house and lawn along with blowup Santa, Elmo, Frosty and Homer have become the pinnacle of good taste!!!
C'mon Vic, the site is perfectly in keeping with the content and in that regard a brilliant piece of design!
To his credit you can turn off the Santa-Homer cursor, (or even enlarge it to "Hulk-in' " size if you choose). You can turn the music off too.
Hi-Def view has a nice comic touch to it (in the mouse-over and description).
There is some diligence to the site as well. He has validated his CSS and HTML 4. Good man!
Even "serious" sites such as big news sites blast you with sounds and flashing lights and massive intrusive ads.
I am usually a stickler for design, but I can see the comic value in this and the design-to-your-content principle in effect here. Alek gets the thumbs up from me.
Happy Xmas
Reply