Drawar

but it seems like a few too many people think that it looks cool when they use ugly fonts and colors.

Can anyone tell me why this seems to be so attractive to people... when in reality it's just ugly?

Protip: they're 16 years old.

Pro-tip: Attractiveness and ugliness are subjective.

Most pointless rant ever.

If you've got clients that are asking for their designs to look like a teenager's MySpace page, then there's something deeply wrong with the clients you are choosing.

Vidar: I'm only 17, and have been designing for well over a year. Do you think your comment is entirely fair??

Harry

Yes, I do.

Hmm, is that in respect of a 16y/o without design knowledge, or a 16y/o in general?

I'm not Vidar so I'm not answering for him, but 16 year olds, in general, have design knowledge insofar as they know what looks good to them which may be red text on black backgrounds as indicated by their MySpace page. They're not designing their personal space on the web to meet some pre-defined goals or to engage the user in the site, they design it how they want because they're having fun doing it and probably don't care what other people think.

In which case, at the risk of sounding big headed, I must've been streets ahead of other 16 year olds when I was 16...

Why do clients want something that is so horribly disgusting that you can't handle it?

But in the end it's theirs and they are paying for it so why shouldn't they get exactly what they want?

I hate some MySpace pages (those flying pictures all over the place? Haha, yeah...) but I respect the person's decision to have that page and I respect that they must like it (otherwise they would change it). I've had some ugly designs (not one word Scrivs and Mike lol) but if I concerned myself too much with how other people would like it (above what I want) the design would never be launched. The only reason why Facebook isn't the same is because they don't allow people to change the look but how many profiles are cluttered with what many would consider "stupid stuff"?

Our differences is what makes us unique. For every person who hates a MySpace page you'll find more that don't care - which is why it is popular. What's ugly to you isn't ugly to them. :)

I like surreal art and dislike abstract art, others like abstract art and hate surreal art. I don't see how design is any different.

MySpace is a visual medium, so yes, some 16 year olds are better visual designers than others. Some 16 year olds are better guitarists than others, some are better writers, some are better singers, some are better mathematicians, some are better athletes, etc. If MySongSpace were a popular site and instead of customized profiles you simply uploaded songs that you played on the piano, then perhaps other 16 year olds would have the leg up on you Harry.

Client's may say they want Red text on a black background but change the background to a patterned Grey background (much like this sites tiled background) and change the red font to a more unsaturated red an pick a good font (I like veranda(I think) all caps size 8.

Point is the client doesn't know what he/she wants... you always know what best. Make a couple cool looking layouts with the red and black thing going on and experiment with the hue and saturation and you just might come up with something that just clicks.

What's ugly to you isn't ugly to them.

i would have to agree with Tyme.

if myspace users bother themselves of the way their page look to other people, well, they might as well dont have a myspace at all because u cant please everybody.

As long as you yourself are ok with the design,i dont see why u should bother with what people think. Friends might tell u about how your design is killing their eyes but thats all they can do. Changing the design is still (in the end) your choice.

Hmm, is that in respect of a 16y/o without design knowledge, or a 16y/o in general?

In general.
Also, I agree with Mike.

I don't know... I'm fourteen years old and I've been designing (what I believe is attractive) websites for about 2 years. I didn't really want this to go into a discussion about myspace, but I guess it has.

But in the end it's theirs and they are paying for it so why shouldn't they get exactly what they want?

-1 from portfolio though. Would you want to include red text on a black background in your portfolio?

Otherwise Tyme, you make a very good point.

Would you want to include red text on a black background in your portfolio?

Would I? No...

Would they? If that's their best work to date... most likely.

You didn't start out where you are today, no one did. Simply because someone isn't up to your standards doesn't mean they're any less creative. I can form a sheet of metal into a vase... can you? Doesn't mean you suck, you just lack that skill.

If I put up the work I did in the early 90's vs. what I did last week it would be light years of difference between then and now.

YES there are clients that ask for some UUUUUGLY work to be done but if they're signing your check you have two options, tell them you're too good to do crap work and lose out on the money and possible work in the future or grin and bear it.

I'd choose to nod my head and smile and let THEM look like idiots in the end... I like to eat.

In the end, both chocolate and vanilla ice cream exist for a reason, as do Coke and Pepsi. We're all different, and we all like different things, and we're all looking to present our sites in different ways to different audiences. We've all seen sites that look like crap, some of them even "professionally designed," but the same words could be applied to cars, houses, books, clothes, frozen foods, etc., etc., but those things that don't appeal to us undoubtedly appeal to someone else.

If we all did and liked the same things, life would be pretty boring wouldn't it? If we were all at the same place in our "art," whatever that art might be (web design, textile art, modding cars, designing landscapes, painting, sculpture, podcasting, you name it), again, it would be pretty boring, and we all might be lacking in inspiration, since everyone would be doing the same thing.

Hell, there are some BAD ASS designers out there that put out some butt ugly designs out there... but they're not MY cup of tea. I'm sure just as many people out there love the work I don't.

I think modern art is a waste of time and money, but I'm not stopping someone from pissing in a glass and calling it "art", I just don't support it through my patronage. Someone else can spend their money on that.

@dougvought ... it's good to vent.

Your frustration is well understood. I'm sure that anyone who has been hired to design something at some point in time has scratched their head and wanted to choke a client when they take a design idea that you feel is a work of art and turn it into something less than portfolio worthy. Our outlook on a project can be determined by the return for our services, emotional ownership of the design, and time invested.

Design is subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Yet, that is not a "get out of jail card" for those who can't design. There are some people out their who can't draw a straight line with a locked T-square. Couple this with a lack of understanding for the development process. When it comes to the design process, we know that it's more involved than just pushing pixes around. We have to be concerned with 508, accessibility, information structure, usability, and functionality. The client could care less. It is often these clients that want to have some ownership in the actual design. They feel the need to be able to see their idea born from [our] skilled hands. They provide an "idea" of what they want and they say something like "This is what I want but you're the professional, create it."

For the most part we are hired to design what's in someone else's head because they lack the skill, software, time, or whatever to do it themselves. So unless they have given you creative autonomy and said "Have at it.", there will be those minefields full of OMG / WTF designs. I have a few out there that I did not put my name on because, in my opinion, what the client wanted was way below my standards.

What I have learned in this situation is before I get started on any project, I make sure it's worth my time ($$$). If I don't have the green light to go nuts, then I remove myself emotionally from the design because I know that details that I will care about may not be important to the client. And last but not least, give the client exactly what they ask for at first.

Sometimes in doing so, the client putting ego aside, will allow you to add your creative flair after realizing that what they saw in their head was not exactly what they wanted. This is where you add your professional 2 cents and lead them to a good functional design.

To avoid these issues in the future, screen your clients. Don't take on projects that you know will tank your creativity.

I have one simple rule... if the design goes off the deep end, I remove my name from the copyright.

That way I have the ability to deny my involvement when someone asks if I designed project X.

@RightOn .... LOL!!!!!

I think Rich brought up a very important point; subjectivity. I'm just going to go ahead and leave you with a quote.

Nick Naylor: -OK, let's say that you're defending chocolate, and I'm defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: 'Vanilla is the best flavour ice-cream', you'd say:
Joey Naylor: No, chocolate is.
Nick Naylor: Exactly, but you can't win that argument... so, I'll ask you: so you think chocolate is the end all and the all of ice-cream, do you?
Joey Naylor: It's the best ice-cream, I wouldn't order any other.
Nick Naylor: -Oh! So it's all chocolate for you is it?
Joey Naylor: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
Nick Naylor: Well I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty.
Joey Naylor: But that's not what we're talking about
Nick Naylor: -Ah! But that's what I'm talking about.
Joey Naylor: ...but you didn't prove that vanilla was the best...
Nick Naylor: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm right.
Joey Naylor: But you still didn't convince me
Nick Naylor: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them." ***Points into the crowd***

Props to Jeff, I love that movie!

This is a debate that can only be settled by coming to grips and making a firm resolution to accept a simple fact: as designers, we may think something is incredibly beautiful or incredibly ugly. But what we think should only play a small part in the process of delivering a product to our clients.

Contrary to popular belief, what we as individuals consider as nice-looking and attractice may be totally awesome to some people, or somewhat nice-looking to lots of people, but never awesome to everyone. Having our own views about the world is a great thing. Designers (myself included of course) shouldn't rely too much on their own taste when working with a client that has opposite views of what looks beautiful.

On the other hand, we have to work off of our own tastes and opinions when working at anything - there is nothing else comparably good to go on.

Also people are conditioned that high quality design in any form means high prices. Architecturally designed house = big price. Sexy mp3 player (iPod) = big price. So that when they log on to the web and visits a visually stunning ecommerce store they might think it costs a lot to shop there and instead be attracted to a visually more simple alternative eg Amazon.

In my interview with Keegan Jones I asked him almost the same question, and couldn't agree more with his response:

Me: Do you think design determines success? For instance, MySpace design is poor - yet the project itself is extremely successful.

Keegan: Design is important, but I don’t think it’s a means to an end. Ideas like MySpace are good enough to catch on, even with a crappy design.

When people talk about the "ugliness" of some of the user designs they forget one important thing: the user created the design and because they created it, can't do any better (or did their best) they are proud of it.

Don't get me wrong, when I see four sets of pictures flying around on a page I just want to make it stop but I never forget what I felt like when I did something equally as stupid (design wise) but I was proud of it. We do similar things like this in our lives. It's the same as a person who is normally late for work getting to work on time. They are proud they did it but doesn't that equate to: congrats on doing what you are supposed to do?

Honestly, Zeldman is supposed to be a top designer. I went to Happy Cog and I thought, "That's it?" I honestly can't think of a design he released that I would consider worthy enough to justify the clout he has.

It is ugly ,or not ... is all up to you.The ugly fonts and colors in your eyes always is the cool ones in other's eyes.

It's all subjective, trying to educate the client in what makes a good useable attractive design is a good practice but it doesn't always work.

Ugly is the new beautiful...

And, further to MindPlunge, what's ugly today may be beautiful tomorrow. Or vice-versa.

La Traviata was hated at its premiere for its offensive subject matter, its score and the ordinariness of the costumes and the sets. The music of Bizet's Carmen was described on its opening to be "as ugly as it is senseless." And of course Stravinsky's Rite of Spring provoked a riot with shocking staging and a score that was "atonal and anaesthetic."

And what great works of art were described on their debut: "...the State's acceptance of such garbage is the sign of a very great moral decay"? That would be the Impressionists.

For the average young user, Myspace pages are difficult to customize and so they rely on the (largely free, largely abrasive) prefab pagelayouts and backgrounds that they can find. In addition there's a desire to add 'cool features' to personalize their pages and display their pictures, their music and so on without any great regard to what looks nice.

They know the page is ugly, all their friends pages are ugly so it's no great surprise--the goal is to take the page beyond its ordinary predetermined ugliness to a place where it's both individual and anarchic, the way a child takes a doll they love by the foot and smacks it on the floor until it breaks or paints its clothes with nail polish or chops at its hair with scissors. Some of that is lack of dexterity and skill, but there's also a desire to set something apart from the sameness of all the others, from the bland prettiness of the mass-produced. It's the desire to make something your own.

I just ran into this situation yesterday. I had a client who has some straight up horrible collateral. The really like their collateral even though it was done by a stay-at-home mom with a copy of MS publisher and no experience. I created 4 different very well-though out designs for their website that are light years more sophisticated than their current materials.

They looked at me with blank stares not knowing how to respond, all i got was "these need to pop more" and "how come our logo its impactful"? It is just ridiculous, considering their logo is a horrible low res 72 dpi ..jpg to begin with.

And don't get me wrong, this company is not a small mom and pop shop. They are a company with over 50 million in revenue a year, that are buying a 100,000 website from me. But this has no reflection whatsoever on their ability to see good branding or marketing...

moral of the story, HGTV has ruined Design, Now everyone thinks they are a designer because words like "pop" "contrast" and "balance" have found their way into their vocabulary.

But in the end it's theirs and they are paying for it so why shouldn't they get exactly what they want?

I have a great example of why what a client wants is not what they should receive or get.

Recently I completed a set of designs for a client that is a beer distributor. I created some very high quality designs that I would consider very professional and also very appropriate for their company (view one of the designs). They do not have any sort of brand guidelines or corporate identity guide. Furthermore they do not even know what one is.

We were never given any sort of direction, or design suggestions prior to the project because they claimed that they were unaware of what they needed. After we presented our designs they became upset. They said that we did not meet their needs at all and that it was lacking "pop." When asked for examples of sites that they felt would meet their needs, we were present with a number of links, here are some of the highlights of what they felt they needed:

Suggested site #1
Suggested Site #2
Suggested Site #3
Suggested Site #4

They also said that in all cases they need the logo to be at least 2-3 times bigger, and it should animate itself opening and the sound of beer pouring should be playing while it opens. They also wanted to work in as much animation as is possible similar to the link with the dancing snowman.

This was really depressing to me as I had spent a considerable amount of time creating designs that were light years above what was submitted to us after the fact.

It is very apparent that these requests will not lead to an online presence that positively affects their brand or their business. In fact the quality of the type of site they are asking for is not that of a company who nets as much yearly earnings as they do. They are basically asking us to create something for them that may negatively portray their business

I do not know what the solution to this problem is right now, but I believe in some respects we have a need to persuade them to change their minds about what is appropriate for their company. However at this time it appears that it may not be possible. I feel very bad for the company because the people tasked with obtaining a website have absolutely no experience in the matter and are essentially going to waste their money on a product that will most likely end up being ineffective in the long run.

Sorry that was such a long rant, however I think that it is really relevant to this question.

So, I know you're flooded with comments so I'll try keep this brief. > Yes, ugly is subjective. > Yes, 16 year old designers have a bad (not entirely undeserved) rap. I was an arrogant 16 y/o designer and now I'm a humbled 28 y/o designer. > Yes (liquid06) you _are_ a code slave. But it's okay, that's what commercial design is for.

Now, about ugly. Good design builds credibility and makes an argument (usually a sale). But different people register credibility in different ways. Some people believe that "ugly" is more "authentic" and that "pretty" equals "fake". Since the goal of every piece of commercial art is conversion (persuasion), then the art should appeal to the audience.

From a freelance design perspective, your audience is frequently your client. Yes, they *should* pay attention to _their_ audience, but they seldom do. As a commercial artist, it is your *job* to sell them something they'll pay for, not to sell them a design that works. Most clients, though, find it in their best interest to pay for a design that sells and not a design that looks nice. And no offense but if a company is hiring a 16 y/o to do their design, it's a pretty sure sign that they really just want *cheap*

If design is *not* your job, it's either a hobby or you're a very confused artist who thinks that there is some concept of "artistic freedom" in commercial design. There is no such thing, and you'll be miserable if you keep looking for it. Good design sells. And that's that.

Some people believe that "ugly" is more "authentic" and that "pretty" equals "fake".

That's a very good point, and could possibly be another reason why some designers purposely make it "ugly".

Have you checked latest Veerle.duoh.com contest?

The proposal was to make a poster saying 'what graphic design is', and there were entries who did ugly compositions (I'm talking red comic sans on black backgrounds all the way), saying 'this is graphic design too'...

I'm not sure I agree, but the thing is that you can't really judge what's nice and ugly...we can howeve, say if it's more readable, more balanced, etc

I think that what I mean by "ugly" is what theadmad said above. I think that things like Comic Sans MS with red on black and capitalized is hard on anyone's eyes (or maybe it's not? '-').

A lot of people are color blind, took a while for me to believe it. Even more so, people are blind to aesthetics.

Somebody trained in cleaning houses will instantly see the slightest tint of dust or a sock not stacked away. Somebody else will just not see it.

As a designer you get TRAINED. Once trained you can break as many rules as you want to, it still will look good, because you broke the rule with purpose. Untrained people HAVE no clue, the just do NOT SEE it - it's as if they are blind, the do not see the difference.

I won't agree with that, mStudio. Take reading as an example. You may not be trained as a writer, but you can probably tell when you're reading something good, and when you're reading something bad. You can't tell exactly what makes it work, but, with enough experience, you just know.

It's the same with aesthetics, except you don't even need the experience part. We receive visual stimuli from a very young age (unlike reading, which differs from person to person). So ugly should be apparent to almost anyone. The difference is that there are people out there who care less. Who cares if Myspace looks like shit? My band gets exposure there, it gets things done, why the heck not? Who cares if Craigslist is ugly? I have a cat to sell, she's destroying my apartment and I better get used to it quickly if I have to get rid of her!

And on and on and on.

@shadowsun7: I agree... to a degree :-) ... meaning that I get your point. The thing with KNOWING in your example of reading means that the person first has to read a while, it will not be from the gecko. And as you said, environment and upbringing - if you are brought up in an environment of aesthetics, it will become so much nature to you that you don't even think about it. But in general it does not "just happen". People who I have met who "just don't get it" - they have been their live in an environment that either doesn't care, doesn't teach... overall, just doesn't get it. It gets to the point that you can go into somebody's environment and you will see the person who lives in a mess beyond description, filthy, dirty, unorderly... this is most often (I don't want to generalize it too much), but this is the person I have found to either not care or just not to know better.

Hope I am writing sense here, it is early for me and I am still trying to wake up to another dreadful and rainy Monday morning.