Why do people insist that services which exist purely for quick searching of information have to be design-orientated and pretty?
I hear the same arguments about developer sites (eg PHP manual) but frankly I prefer layouts with an emphasis on conveying content rather than watering down that content behind a wall of epic sized fonts, fading effects and huge scrollable areas.
There's a time and place for each design choice, but government sites aren't there to look pretty, they're there for reference. And while it's entirely possible to have a such a layout that isn't ugly, in this instance I think the site has gone the other way (form over function) - so I'd sooner see be faced with an ugly site.
NB this is coming from a dyslexic who equally hates being presented with walls of text.
> Why do people insist that services which exist purely for quick searching of information have to be design-orientated and pretty?
Many of the design principles that improve the aesthetics of a site do have a direct correlation in making those sites easier to navigate and use, esp. for folks who already have a hard time navigating web pages or understanding what information is good/bad/desired. This goes for quality and design of icon sets, font selection, color palette, hinting effects for interactive page elements link links, navigation hierarchy, and more.
> There's a time and place for each design choice, but government sites aren't there to look pretty, they're there for reference. And while it's entirely possible to have a such a layout that isn't ugly, in this instance I think the site has gone the other way (form over function) - so I'd sooner see be faced with an ugly site.
It is true some sites go overboard with visual emphasis will not fully considering user experience. That is true for aesthetically pleasing and unpleasing sites. Government sites are no different from any other kind of site - if aesthetic improvements make the UX better, they are appropriate, perhaps even more so for a site that is supposed to be totally accessible to all people affected by government.
> Government sites are no different from any other kind of site
I beg to differ. I think government sites (as well as other reference material like programming manuals) are about getting visitors to their requested information as quickly and painlessly as possible. The user experience isn't from browsing the site, it's purely on whether the visitor found the piece of information or not. Where as recreational sites are about keeping visitors on the page for longer. ie encouraging them to browse around on related pages and re-visit the site again - preferably frequently. For that to work, having a prettier site is of more importance (note that I'm not saying more important than usability, just that aesthetics is of more importance on those types of sites than on reference sites).
It's like sports cars vs delivery trucks. The former needs to be prettier as it's a luxury item and few people would buy an ugly luxury item. So sometimes you'll see the design dictated a little by aesthetics (eg the way the doors open). The latter is bought to serve a specific purpose, so if it's not functional then people wouldn't buy it. This means that delivery trucks generally aren't as aesthetically pleasing but they don't need to be.
To expand on my example, when you described how form and function work beautifully together is a little like Eddie Stobart trucks, they've laid the function down first and then worked out how to make it feel a great deal more special by emphasising the functional attributes of the truck. And as much as I agree with you that examples like that in web design is fantastic, it's a very hard thing to judge. Sadly most people don't pull it off.
You'd have to be pretty shallow to think that aesthetics are the be-all and end-all of improving peoples lives (and particularly in the case of government websites where they're just a tool; people just use them as a means to an end).
Usability should be the most important factor of a government website. If it can be pretty and usable, then that's a bonus.
To people like me and you it means "stupid things that prevent me from doing what I want. Things that are only there because someone thinks they look nice"
To good designers it means "very carefully made choices that make information easier to find; that make websites easier to use; and that have the added benefit of making things less ugly."
I say that a book is often a great example of minimal design. Designers point out that books have hundreds of years of cumulative design - the fonts have been iterated; the layout and the margins and the indents and everything has all had decades of iteration.
I get the feeling that you and parent both agree and are now talking past each other.
This was why I switched to using the terms "aesthetics" and "usability" to make the distinction between the different interpretations of "design" (In fact in the very post you replied to, I hadn't used the term "design" once).
Since The other guy counter-argued using those same terms so I can only assume that our opinions differ.
I didn't say that, but pretty is better than ugly in almost every situation, that was the point. Good-looking and usable is better than ugly and usable.
Websites should maximize user experience, i.e. how pleasantly the user feels. Aesthetics and usability contribute to that.
Recreational sites with reference tools. If we were talking about sites like Twitter, then aesthetics are obviously very important. However for productivity tools such as government websites, then usability is far more important as you're not after casual surfers and trying to generate more traffic from them, you're literally just trying to get people to the information they want in the most direct and painless way possible.
I hear the same arguments about developer sites (eg PHP manual) but frankly I prefer layouts with an emphasis on conveying content rather than watering down that content behind a wall of epic sized fonts, fading effects and huge scrollable areas.
There's a time and place for each design choice, but government sites aren't there to look pretty, they're there for reference. And while it's entirely possible to have a such a layout that isn't ugly, in this instance I think the site has gone the other way (form over function) - so I'd sooner see be faced with an ugly site.
NB this is coming from a dyslexic who equally hates being presented with walls of text.