Are pretty websites easier to use? The answer requires getting pretty deep into cognitive psychology and the theory of emotions.

Posted: Thursday July 16, 2009 by Alesh Houdek · Categories: Design · Comment feed: RSS, atom

 

Comment

  1. Squathole    Jul 16, 04:15 PM #  

    He-yuk. I just saw the name of this blog as, “Building Sand Food.” That would be sand castle kitchen fare, I guess.

    And now back to the crack pipe.



  2. Alex    Jul 17, 11:06 AM #  

    But “pretty” is such a loaded word in the context of graphic design. Reading the article i think they mean “ornate”, in which graphic sleigh of hand masks a poorly organized site. The oldest argument in communications.



  3. alesh    Jul 17, 05:01 PM #  

    Yeah… i meant “pretty” in the Wire sense… “look at this pretty motherfucker” … that sort of thing.

    I didn’t get the sense that they meant ‘ornate’ i dunno, What about this? Beautiful graphics, but in the service of the thing.



  4. Alex    Jul 17, 06:56 PM #  

    That’s the key, aesthetics in service of organization and usability. Slate good, Huffpo, bad. Google, which ironically they mention, is to me one end of the spectrum which would greatly benefit from “prettyfying” but not like Bing, which is purely ornate. The opposite side of the spectrum would be your typical Myspace page.



Commenting is closed for this article.