In a fascinating piece on the amazing growth of the photo-sharing site Fotolog, Jason Kottke clearly articulates a growing problem in design:
“Fotolog…relative to Flickr…has
changed little in the past couple of years. Fotolog has groups and
message boards, but they’re not done as well as Flickr’s
“embed this photo on your blog/MySpace”, and no helpful
Ajax design elements, all supposedly required elements for a successful
site in the Web 2.0 era. Even now, Fotolog’s feature set and
design remains planted firmly in Web 1.0 territory.”
How do sites with sub-optimal visual design and technology grow so big and become so successful? How are MySpace, Fotolog, and Craigslist
so popular in an age that values stunning visual design and amazing
technology above all else? Conversely, how is it that Flickr, full of
beauty and Ajax, is being overtaken by a site as boring as Fotolog?
Aye, there’s the rub…a rub that defines the current state of web design.
First off, a little throat-clearing. We’re dealing with Alexa stats
here, so there are no guarantees that anything is accurate. Just
because Alexa shows that Fotolog gets more traffic than Flickr
doesn’t mean that it is…it’s kind of like listening
to a reporter who usually covers political news tell us what’s
going on in Silicon Valley. Suspect, to say the least. But for the sake
of argument let’s assume that the trend is right, and that
Fotolog is overtaking Flickr in terms of traffic.
Page views and Ajax…a match made in Hell
Well, one reason why Fotolog might appear so successful is the very
technology that Jason mentions: Ajax. Page views are a metric that
Alexa uses in its traffic calculation. But when you switch to an Ajax
interface, your page views plummet. For example, when people want to
add a tag, change a headline, or edit a photo set on Flickr very few
page views occur. You’re simply interacting with a single screen
that doesn’t refresh, but sends and receives requests in the
background. This undoubtedly has a huge effect on the page views on
Fotolog, on the other hand, gets a page view anytime a person wants
to change anything. Therefore, less efficient bandwidth consumption and
server usage actually gets Fotolog much higher traffic
numbers…which is pretty damn ironic.
What’s more ironic is that this is an increasing problem on
huge advertising sites and few people want to talk about it.
What’s at stake? Billions of dollars that are wrapped up in
page-view models where money changes hands depending on what
“traffic” a site receives. And for years that traffic
depends on page requests to a server, which of course happens even when
people are doing simple things like changing a photos headline. So
while companies realize that using an Ajax interface, when done well,
can literally save millions in bandwidth costs and actually provide a
faster, easier-to-use interface, they also realize that their
advertisers only know one metric: the page view.
I’ve talked to some folks at Yahoo
about this, and they say that their discussions on this topic get
pretty tense. This is a huge problem for them because so much of their
revenue is advertising based but they know that the future of interface
design is elegant Ajax. This problem has been known for some time, but we’re still at the start of the huge effort in migrating away from the page view as a valuable metric for anything.
Technology doesn’t a great value make
Jason makes a strong case that technology is over-valued. I think he’s exactly right when he says:
“Maybe tags, APIs, and Ajax aren’t the
silver bullets we’ve been led to believe they are. Fotolog,
MySpace, Orkut, YouTube, and Digg have all proven that you can build
compelling experiences and huge audiences without heavy reliance on
so-called Web 2.0 technologies. Whatever Web 2.0 is, I don’t
think its success hinges on Ajax, tags, or APIs.”
This is the exact problem I’ve been talking about lately: in
some cases visual design and/or technology are trumped by other aspects
In my Social Design talk,
which I most recently gave at the Web App Summit, I ask this question:
What are the most successful web sites in the world? The answers are
the ones you would expect: Google, YouTube, MySpace, Yahoo, Craigslist,
But then I ask the question slightly differently: What are the most well-designed
web sites in the world? Outside of a minimalist Google, there is no
overlap for most folks. None of the others on the list are
“well-designed” in their minds…they’re simply
successful, poorly-designed sites. They attribute the success of these
sites to other factors: being first in the market, having economies of
From a visual design standpoint they might be right: these sites
aren’t going to win any visual design contests. But the value of
these sites goes so far beyond the visual that to judge them by the way
they look is to completely miss the boat. In our testing at UIE,
for example, we’ve never had anyone refuse to shop at Amazon
because it doesn’t look great…in fact people are most
passionate about Amazon because of the value they get from
reviews…and the rest of the socially-focused features there.
People love Amazon, and it has nothing to do with its visual design!
And people are passionate about the other very successful sites,
too. To Jason’s point, the major value of all of the successful
sites doesn’t rest on what specific technology they use or
whether they have tagging. Instead, the major value rests on social
aspects of the design…take away the interaction of the
communities on these sites and there is very little value left in them.
Take away the reviews from Amazon and you’ll hear a great big
sucking sound of folks rushing out to buy their wares on some other
Similarly to Amazon, Fotolog relies heavily on social interaction,
in their case sharing photos with friends. This is the primary value of
the site, not how they do it from a technological standpoint.
The usual red herring: judging a book by its cover
Ignoring visuals and technology (at least temporarily) is a big
change for many designers and technologists. Why? Because technology
and visuals often get the credit when things go well, but aren’t
really talked about when things go contrary to our assumptions.
That’s exactly Jason’s point: why is it that Fotolog uses
inferior technology and visual design and still succeeds?
I think the answer is that the differentiator on the Web right now
isn’t great visual design or technology, although those help out
tremendously (don’t get me wrong!). An analogy might be in order
here because so many people think I’m trying to denigrate visual
design…I’m not! Here’s an analogy:
Every time George Bush makes his State of the Union Address he
speaks very clearly, his words are well-chosen and his speechwriters
are obviously top-of-the-class. They communicate very well, and for the
most part every single person who listens or watches the address knows
exactly what George Bush is trying to say. Speechwriters learning the
craft would do well to emulate the skill and technique of Bush’s
speechwriters. Even so, the address is a bunch of statements that most
people disagree with: most people want the U.S. out of Iraq and observe
that the efforts there have largely been a failure. But the State of
the Union Address itself is well-executed: it’s clear
communication…Bush is just sending the wrong message.
This is the same with visual design: you can execute beautifully but
if the message you’re sending isn’t the one the audience
wants to hear then the overall design will be a failure. I believe this
is what Jason is talking about with his repeated references to
“Web 2.0″. He doesn’t see the value in the majority
of so-called Web 2.0 services…they might look great and have
interesting technology but if they don’t actually improve our
lives…then what good are they?
Visual design is about communicating a message well…getting
the point across. The problem comes when the message being communicated
isn’t the right one…and that’s exactly what
we’re seeing so much of…so many sites have great visual
design and great technology but just aren’t sending a valuable
Where are all these sites? They’re everywhere: they’re the ones you’re NOT using.
There are two primary aspects of design: communicating the right
message. Why is this two aspects? Because one aspect is communicating a
message well and the other is making sure it is the right message in
the first place. Perhaps this second part is what is called design strategy these days. I don’t know, but I know that one needs the other in each and every design project.
Preventing valueless design
We need a new way of thinking to prevent valueless design.
Valueless design is like a George Bush speech: well-executed but wrong.
While it may be communicating beautifully on one level, the impact on
society may be minimal or, even worse, negative. We need design that
provides real value to humans.
The new model as I call it is social design: a focus on the
social lives of users, the context of how people live, and the
connections they have with their family, friends, and loved ones.
It’s about the daily activities that people care about, that make
their lives richer, more fulfilling, and that have very little to do
with how a piece of software looks or works behind the scenes.
But that’s just how I see it. I’m sure that other ways to get people in the right design mindset. I believe the best designers not only execute technically well, but have the mindset to discover
the right design. They’re open to new ideas, passionate about
what they do, and focused on the lives of their users in order to
prevent sending the wrong message.