I could not disagree more. Don't fix what isn't broken (anymore). I believe that after years of designing websites, we found something that works, and works well. Consumers land on sites and see something familiar. It makes for a comfortable and easier web. I'm all for this "standard" in web design.
Just like we didn't need to fix the infinite-scrolling-homepage before it, or the top-navigation-with-drop-downs design before that , or the left-side-navigation-fixed-width design before that, or the fluid-width-with-header-and-two-sidebars before that. The current design trend is exactly that - a trend. Something else will replace it in a year or two.
The current state-of-the-art full screen background image site is no more a standard than any other design in any other field. Design is a living, breathing thing that evolves as our technology evolves - it moves with the times.
However...
I believe that after years of designing websites, we found something that works, and works well.
You don't need to 'believe'. If you aren't testing your designs and gathering actionable metrics you're really missing out.
Testing is great, but tends to involve small local modifications. It'll get you a site that looks the same in a different way, but won't help if you want something a bit different.
Even if people did run tests on significant redesigns, I suspect results would be dominated by methodological issues and a lack of power, leading to little more than noise.
Yep. This is like someone saying "all pop songs sound the same". Yup, they do, and because they're meant to be accessible.
The consumer doesn't always want to be challenged. See "Don't Make Me Think". A familiar design allows us to focus on the content, not the delivery.
There are exceptions, of course. Iron Maiden's website is dark and epic, as it should be. They're a metal band. But if I'm going to be buying software from you, c'mon. Make my life easier. Don't make me think.
It's sad that you're suggesting that a good accessible intuitive website needs to follow a specific design recipe or else doomed.
If I'm going to buy software from a website, what matters is quality information architecture and UX, which could be presented in any number of ways.
"Don't make me think"... next you'll be wanting all your restaurant menus to follow the McDonald's menu style guide.
"Thinking" doesn't need to be an annoyance. Promoting "you don't need to think" might even backfire. You're ignoring the benefits of standing out as unique. Leaving a lasting impression however small, can be the difference between earning respect or being seen as playing it safe and therefore a clone in the consumer's eyes. Clones are expendable.
It's a fine line, a balancing act that sorts the confident websites out from the copycat yawn-fests. Take the risk I say, but it's a philosophical difference.
(Basing my comment on Kathy Sierra's post : Your app makes me fat[1].)
The idea is that the user is not on your site to get your ideas about web design but to get specific information. If that info is hard to find, they'll get out and try the next site.
Concentrate on making your content memorable rather than your UI.
I'm arguing that "unfamiliar" does not necessarily mean "hard to find".
My iPad for example is not unfamiliar, but I find it annoying to bookmark a site because of how the bookmark button is hidden behind an icon which to me looks like "sharing" (little square with arrow pointing up). Same for searching for text on the page.... it's not intuitive. I have to "think" for too many milliseconds each time just to do those basic actions.
You could say "I'm familiar with Apple's annoyingly unintuitive iOS Safari UX for bookmarking and searching text on the page." "Familiar" has not saved the day in this case.
When I go to a site because I'm interested in their product, I'm not looking for a familiar interface in terms of layout or design replication from previously visited websites. I'm looking (unconsciously) for top level things such as clear presentation and logical, friendly layout. "Logic" can appear as many pathways. "Interestingness" is what humans get a buzz from and reward each other for all the time, so if I get a dose of interesting too, served just right and not too much, then it's a winner.
> I'm arguing that "unfamiliar" does not necessarily mean "hard to find".
Fair point. :)
> "Interestingness" is what humans get a buzz from and reward each other for all the time, so if I get a dose of interesting too, served just right and not too much, then it's a winner.
I agree with you but, clearly, it's a hard balance to find. Going back to the article, most website owners (and some designers) don't know what that balance is so they take a safe option. It's an understandable choice, they're not experts. I think it's a net win if those non-experts don't experiment but settle on something that's easily readable. It's a step up from the time when everybody was doing their own thing and standards didn't exist.
In short, you're right: a well-designed website is still better than a generic one. But a generic one is better than a mess put together without paying attention to standards.
