All Websites Look the Same

171 点作者 brownie超过 9 年前

41 条评论

21echoes超过 9 年前

(Most) all websites should look the same. Most browsers look the same. Most car dashes look the same. Most newspapers look the same. Most books look the same.The web is not art. At least, not most of the time. Websites should only look markedly different with good reason. For most clients, there is not a good reason.

评论 #10180402 未加载

评论 #10181021 未加载

评论 #10180190 未加载

评论 #10188582 未加载

评论 #10180459 未加载

评论 #10180345 未加载

评论 #10181502 未加载

unicornporn超过 9 年前

Aaand... Looking at their landing page[1] I can see they've chosen to go with a horizontal page layout. Because they use a non standard page layout they have a black stripe bumping in and out of the viewport instructing the user that they can/should scroll. This is quite a common layout among artsy portfolio themes[2].Has anyone ever tried to sidescroll a web page lately? On my Yosemite MBP with latest Firefox/Chromium I just get a jitter and no movement. Sometimes the scrollbar moves in the wrong the direction and then dies.Moral: what is tried and tested usually works very well.[1] <a href="http://www.novolume.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">http://www.novolume.co.uk/</a>[2] <a href="http://demo.koken.me/#boulevard" rel="nofollow">http://demo.koken.me/#boulevard</a>

评论 #10180467 未加载

评论 #10180703 未加载

评论 #10180648 未加载

mattkevan超过 9 年前

> At times I think back to when websites were produced in Flash. For all its downfalls (and there were a lot) one thing was always true. Flash sites rarely looked the same.The author clearly doesn't remember what it was actually like to arrive on a Flash site, and play the fun games of 'where has the designer hidden the navigation today?' and 'oh crap, how do I turn the sound off?'.Design patterns are there to ensure that functionality works in a roughly consistent manner across different sites, so instead of having to spend ages figuring out an inscrutable interface, the user can easily buy a product or find the information they want and get on with their day.This is not a trend. This is lots of people slowly figuring out how content should be structured for maximum usability in a web context. Layout conventions will develop over time, as new ideas are incorporated and technology changes, but that's a good thing.As has been pointed out, books have looked roughly the same for the last few hundred years, but design innovation has only increased, as technology and our understanding of the conventions involved has improved.The visual design area is more susceptible to trends - a few years ago everything was glossy, then with 'Flat UI' everything became dark blue and a sickly shade of green. But that's ok too. Except for the green, that was horrible.The danger is with 'cargo cult' design. That's where the complaint against generic themes is valid – a style is used because it's popular without thinking about whether it's actually the best fit for the content and what's to be achieved.

评论 #10180683 未加载

dpcan超过 9 年前

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.

评论 #10180340 未加载

评论 #10180347 未加载

avodonosov超过 9 年前

It's just one example of fashion in tech. Around ten years ago there was another fashion for web sites - all the panels had rounded corners (and it wasn't supported by CSS, so people created the rounded corners from pieces of images - very unproductive waste of time).Non-tech people, when ordering a web side, often just don't accept things which look different than other web sites they have seen. At that times it was difficult to convince people rounded panels with borders are not necessary. People often are unable to judge themselves, so they rely on what others do.There are many other examples of such unhealthy fashion: Spring framework in Java, XML, SOAP, gray text on web pages (even despite it violates W3C accessibility recommendations), not using tables in markup (even if I want tabular layout), etc, etcOn the other hand I agree that uniformity can help people to consume information, and also inventing unique design is often a waste - the content is the most important part. Still, there are many cases of harmful fashion.

评论 #10180318 未加载

mholt超过 9 年前

For that matter, all books look the same too. And yet everyone knows how to use books. You hand someone a book and they never look at you funny asking how to get to Chapter 1.His article is negative, but I for one have been able to traverse websites more quickly and easily because they adhere to some now-common conventions. Of course websites need to be original but not SO original that they require the user to adjust their assumptions about what to expect from site while it's loading.

评论 #10180330 未加载

BinaryIdiot超过 9 年前

Honestly I'm fine with most websites sticking to a similar layout as it helps me navigate it faster plus it's just trendy right now so that'll pass like all web design trends before it.Having said that this specific layout is garbage, in my opinion and not because of its design but because of the way it's used. It's so incredibly rare to see a company use this type of layout without filling in every single space with utter bullshit about generic buzzwords and it just takes up so much space. I can't count how many start-up websites I go to and I have to scroll down for pages just to figure out what they even sell because everything up front is large, generic images that don't mean anything followed by lots of very general phrases and buzzwords.

Phlow超过 9 年前

I think it's safe to say, at least from my view, that Bootstrap is the reason for it. Bootstrap made this format easy and clean, and it works well with mobile. Websites will look like this until someone comes out with the next thing that's easier and/or cleaner and/or works better in mobile and then a couple years later THAT will be the format you're seeing everywhere. I don't think this is a bad thing. At least it's clean and works well on mobile...

评论 #10180284 未加载

评论 #10181811 未加载

pun_Krawk超过 9 年前

I take issue with the current 'standard' design, but only indirectly. I feel like giant home screens give companies the freedom to create a great looking webpage without any actual content - like a giant landing page. Since they all look the same, it's easy to compare and contrast.I can recall a number of times scrolling through the entire home page for a company, only to still be confused about what the product actually does. I see a huge banner image, coordinating colors, tons of whitespace, very high-level text content...but little that says, "Our product will specifically do this, that, and the next for you!". I have to click around to find that out. By that time, I'm quite annoyed, and I'm not sure if your product is worth my effort.Maybe my expectations of a home page are wrong though.

评论 #10180542 未加载

评论 #10180233 未加载

评论 #10180556 未加载

评论 #10180336 未加载

trymas超过 9 年前

If mentioned style works is simple, and represents/introduces product/service well, then why not. What annoys me is when designers/developers over do it, e.g. scroll hijacking, lots of heavy JS which introduces horrible lag, and unnecessary pop which ruins user experience.Sorry, but `novolume.co.uk` is stepping into the the category of over doing it.Huge, and super low contrast arrow buttons to switch articles. Why?Italic serif slim and narrow font, from which my head hurts, eyes are twitching and is not readable (and some characters are unrecognisable, e.g. '&'). AFAIK, serif font is more readable then sans-serif, but this is not the case.Custom scroll bar, why the hell do you need to replicate a perfect native widget my browser has (and this seems to be a new trend, probably replacing scroll hijacking)?Crazy tilted, on hover shape and colour changing (and low-res) social buttons, why make it so complicated?At least `novolume.co.uk` loads and renders fast, is responsive and does not have lagging UI.

sdoering超过 9 年前

He's even got a little follow up on what happened after he posted his content:<a href="http://www.novolume.co.uk/blog/stolen-success/" rel="nofollow">http://www.novolume.co.uk/blog/stolen-success/</a>

jpswade超过 9 年前

>At times I think back to when websites were produced in Flash. For all its downfalls (and there were a lot) one thing was always true. Flash sites rarely looked the same.This is the take away line. There's a reason why we now have beautiful looking websites to a fairly uniform standard and that after the 2000s, the usage of Flash on Web sites declined.The fact that "all websites look the same" should be celebrated in as much that we've found a formula that is practical for consuming content and for the most part, works.

orthoganol超过 9 年前

He's right that most bootstrapped startup websites look the same, because they don't have designers on their team, their founders aren't trained in design, and they don't have the money or time to really flesh out the design. They just follow easy examples that are passable or in vogue. Or worse, maybe they just buy a template.But OP is wrong once you talk about startups that get money. I mean for some well known ones, just look at Stripe, Mattermark, Branient, Mixpanel, Filepicker, Buildzoom... these sites aren't the same at all. If you spend time studying the design of hundreds of YC startups you'll see what I mean... almost to the point where I wonder if YC specifically instructs their startups not to copy other YC startups.

评论 #10180374 未加载

websitescenes超过 9 年前

After reading the comments the debate seems to be creativity vs utility. There has to be a balance between the two. Acknowledge what works best now and then adjust when something better comes along.With that said, specifically in websites, I think utility should come as a first priority. If your doing a band or artist website I can see bumping up the creativity factor though.

s_dev超过 9 年前

I found this on Intercoms blog post entitled "Some Things can't be Wireframed". This picture reflects the meta design of many websites. <a href="https://blog.intercom.io/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/SquareSpace-Frame.png" rel="nofollow">https://blog.intercom.io/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/SquareSp...</a>We've arrived with this design from years of design evolution and no one person is responsible. All products seem to ultimately converge on some optimal universal archetype. Websites, books and radio towers are no different in this sense. The same will be true of mobile Apps someday but I don't think its the case at the moment.<a href="https://blog.intercom.io/things-cant-wireframed/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.intercom.io/things-cant-wireframed/</a>

fsloth超过 9 年前

As in "All the books looks the same"? I see nothing wrong with finding optimal ways to present information.

thenomad超过 9 年前

So in summary, most websites have settled on a design with:- Headline / key attention-grab in the most visible size possible- Subhead / attention -> interest converter right below that- Attractive visual element providing emotional context occupying as much screenspace as possible- Benefits propositions right below those, exactly where you'd expect them to be if you're familiar with a Web browserSounds like a damn good approach to me. I mean, I'd be happy to see an even more efficient design that measurably increased conversion rates for most products, but if there's nothing currently out there, I'm OK with the state of the art :)

totemizer超过 9 年前

All websites should look the same, but they don't. Sadly. It's all just information in some kind of format. A video as an mp4 or some text as... well text in whatever way your machine stores it, but mixed with a bunch of irrelevant other text.But then there is "design" and then you get stuff like inconsistent search, inconsistent site layout, you never know where to look, what to look for, you miss things because they are placed somewhere where you are not used to look. It's a mess.All websites should look the same.

callum85超过 9 年前

All startup websites look the same. They all use this template because it perfectly addresses their goals (grab your attention, explain a new kind of product, convince you to sign up) while also being familiar and repeatable. That doesn't concern or surprise me.Other kinds of web page with a standard design style include: shopfronts, forums and Q&A sites, search engine result pages, shopping carts, calendar apps, video sharing sites.Trying to look irregular just for the sake of it is bad.

评论 #10181844 未加载

dfragnito超过 9 年前

It so happened I was given 5 different pens over a course of a week. Each pen had a different interface twist, pull, slide, press, not one was of the traditional variety of clicking the top. The following week I had to go to the bank to sign something. The banker handed me a pen, I pulled, twisted, pushed, and could not figure it out then I realized it was of the tradituinal variety, and sheepishly clicked the top.

mjsweet超过 9 年前

I think it's important to not mess with the customers mental model. In particular the shopping cart pattern was created over a period of time to make the eCommerce user experience as frictionless as possible. So when someone wants to get through the cart, you would want as few surprises for the customer as possible. The hamburger icon is a great example of how a UX pattern has taken a long time to filter down into the the collective mindset of users... "oh.. this is the menu". I still get clients asking when the funny stack of lines are and end up adding "Menu" right next to the icon. So my question is this: is it safe to try new things, or is it better to stick with existing patterns we know work? Or is there a blend of both? Is it better to let larger operations (Facebook, Google, Apple etc) to forge the way with mass assimilation of UX patterns? I do think my first instinct is right (first sentence), but I would love to know the experiences of other UX people about integrating new and fresh UX patterns.

评论 #10181872 未加载

MrJagil超过 9 年前

earlier discussion: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10124078" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10124078</a>

ohthehugemanate超过 9 年前

Nytimes.com Brookings.edu Reddit.com JustinBiebermusic.com Facebook.com Spotify.com Google.comWebsites Fall into functional categories. Sites within a given category look the same. Sites about a product need a powerful visual "grabber" element that communicates key brand points along with their name, then they need to provide key informational points on am easy to digest manner, often segregating the audience by interest. The big banner, three subtopics layout is a popular way to achieve this.But not all websites are about introducing a product. Some are about getting immediate social interaction. Some are about exposing deep information in a set of categories. Some are about hierarchical display of the newest possible information. They don't tend to use the banner/three subheadings layout.

drikerf超过 9 年前

I believe it's a good thing. When websites follow some kind of blueprints it makes it a lot easier for the user since they can recognize it. The negative side is of course that it might slow innovation, although slow isn't always bad.

评论 #10180861 未加载

inDigiNeous超过 9 年前

Who cares about the looks, really? The looks are there just to present the content, in a way that fits all the devices that are used to view it.Sure, you can do some artsyfantsy pantsy stuff now and then, but then again, it's about the content too, just that the whole artsy website is the content.And this guy has the most generic looking blog structure also, so why is he blaming the guilt on somebody else. I'm so glad I don't have to go through these "designed just because design" flash websites anymore and try to figure out different structures for each page.

skaplun超过 9 年前

Most organizations pick designs based on competitor research. Sometimes there's a project manager in the middle to preach ux. Either way the site comes out like the rest, and at times its usable

Kiro超过 9 年前

Definitely prefer that layout compared to the one used on novolume.co.uk.

pmontra超过 9 年前

All "normal" stairs, windows, roofs, tables, chairs look the same. There are good reasons for stable architectural patterns. There are good reasons for web design patterns too. Go back to the 90's and early 00's. There were so many different styles. A few won and became the ancestors of today's styles. Many more lost and got extinct. Sure, there are other styles that nobody thought about that are better than what we have today. They'll get created from time to time, copied and refined.

awjr超过 9 年前

The designer seems to be harking back to a time when pretty much the only browser was one on a laptop and you could reliably assume 764pixel width.These days, you have no idea what is browsing your website and more than likely it is somebody on a phone. So priorities change.Content makers want their message in front of as many people as possible. To achieve this, you make it work on a small screen. This brings good design constraints and stops design for the sake of design.

cm2187超过 9 年前

Let's make website like architects make buildings. It's more important to be original than beautiful or functional. Let's put the navigation menus at the bottom of the page and the disclaimer at the top. Let's randomize the order of the links and elements so that every user has a unique and original experience on every visit. In fact why use english? That's so boring. Let's use hieroglyph!

评论 #10181743 未加载

oneJob超过 9 年前

I've often thought that porting a game engine to the browser with a suitably robust object library and hyper-intuitive developer interface would be just what is needed to jump-start a move away from rectangles and columns. And doubly so now that VR is about to hit its stride. I want what "The Lawnmower Man" promised me, dang it!

jbb555超过 9 年前

Most websites are aweful. My monitor is almost 2000 pixels wide and they insist in packing their whole text into about a 10cm little strip of it. I see so many websites that want me to read about 5 words in a row when there is space for about 30 if they weren't too lazy to use the whole screen.I guess they prefer arty over practical.

AndrewKemendo超过 9 年前

The internet is a giant A/B test. If something works, people adopt it. Once it stops working, people move on to what works then. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.I'm starting to think that the tech community at large doesn't understand that it's also part of humanity, and thus falls to the same cognitive traps as the rest of society.

js4win超过 9 年前

A Website needs to convey an idea in the most convenient form possible. Due to a rise in smartphones, most websites have trended towards a mobile-first layout - scroll to view the entire content without any redirects between multiple pages. I would be interested to see a professional designer's perspective on this.

hkmurakami超过 9 年前

>Generic wins out every time.Frankly, unless you are a company where design differentiation is paramount, it is much safer to do what everyone else is doing and be "good enough".It's cheaper, faster, and possibly on average better for visitors to glean the messages you want them to hear, compared to more daring designs.

mdpm超过 9 年前

"All these pants have 3 holes, some sort of fastening/cinching mechanism, and the layout's basically the same in each case!"

starikovs超过 9 年前

The good side of this is that users, not hackers, can feel conmfortably when they deel with something known and predictable.

task_queue超过 9 年前

It is a current design trend, it will be different in a few years just as it was different a few years ago.

desireco42超过 9 年前

I would say, this is good part, common elements, creativity is in the content or other solutions.

kenOfYugen超过 9 年前

All websites look the same because they rely on 'best practices'. If you have a 'better practice' go ahead and implement it, thus inspiring the best practices to come.That's how the human world evolves, slowly blending the old with the new.

gopowerranger超过 9 年前

A lot of posts here are mixing "look the same" with "function the same". Familiarity is fine when it comes to function but to look the same is boring.