IMO the amazon website is not a good example of UX focused design, it's way too cluttered with messy information and it's often unclear where you will find the info you're actually looking for. Using only access counts as a metric of how good the website is can also be quite misleading, as the market presence of the brand behind the website will have a much bigger influence than the design of the website itself (as long as it is decently functional of course). Also I think your argument on "content is king" is kinda mixing the responsibilities a little bit. "Displaying" content in a clear, useful and user-friendly manner is the designer's responsibility, "having" content is not, it depends on what the company has to offer. Just take the craigslist example, sure it may get a lot of daily accesses, while being very ugly, but that is because the "service" behind the website is popular and widely used, it doesn't mean that the website is the best it could be. A company's website can play a large role on establishing the brand image, an ugly website will not help with that, in fact it might even make the company seem sketchy. Overall I do agree with your argument that user experience is much more important than anything else in a website, but I wouldn't say that looking good does not matter at all. For example, craigslist does have pages for the region I live, but there's barely anything in them. Why? Because here we have other similar services, with better advertising, better branding and better looking websites, which don't lose at all in functionality. It's all a game of knowing what to focus on where. UX will always be first, but don't neglect UI entirely. Also friendly edit just to say these are all simple suggestions, don't mean to sound like an angry criticist '^^
@whosajid but bro, as you talked, I am still with you are right more beautiful website takes more time to load and it is way complex to make it responsive
yes, but I think they did they investigation and research, with metrics and analytics and study of visitor interaction, the website serves to serve millions of types of customers/visitors. It works for everyone - that's the key. Its like wearing a custom designed clothes and general designed clothes, both do its job. But the latter fit most of us and sells more.
Bro, the websites you showcased are functional websites where people visit it to use, and they are just flat designs and the design decisions are made for that purpose only. The award winning websites are built to showcase their works, or about a brand(their focus is to impress users why to chose their brand), or explain a story or information in a visually stunning manner, or creating more inspirational ideas, passion projects that can make way for the future Web 4.0. I am too not a professional developer, but I am an UX designer and I know where to make what kind of designs. So both Flat designs and More flashy designs have different purposes and they have to be used only for those scenarios only and please don't mock award winning website designers or developers for that.
I am sorry, but my intentions are not to mock anyone. The video is for new devs who got caught up in the trap of dribble and Instagram. I know product websites are simpler and brand/landing page designs are flashy. I absolutely agree with you that design for the purpose. I truly believe in the theory of "Form follows Function". At the end of the video I clarified that if you are a pro dev/designer you can create something extraordinary. Thanks for your constructive feedback. I will try to do better next time.
This video gives out the wrong message. The point you're trying to make is that "UI" shots in Dribbble designs look cool but functionally impractical. But what ends up conveying here is that good looking designs are a sin. And the examples you've shown here are websites that have existed for years if not decades. And these websites like Indian Railways are actually used cuz there is no other alternative. If I want to book a ticket to travel in a train, I must use indian railways even if its shit. These sites are used for so many years that even a minor design revamp can cause huge uproar cuz users are so used to that style of design for years and they are not ready to learn a new usage pattern. But showing these as examples and creating a new product with those same old ugly UI will cause more problems for the business. No user would be ready to use a new product that looks like its straight out of 90s with no CSS.
> And these websites like Indian Railways are actually used cuz there is no other alternative. If I want to book a ticket to travel in a train, I must use indian railways even if its shit. It's shit not because of how it conveys needed information. Indian sites disable a lot of browser features which make them shit. Besides, a lot of examples shown here have done slow changes over the years. Stop blaming users. Users are quite adept at adapting to new designs unless you majorly reshuffle the UI components. Like putting a logout button on the top-left because your artistic vision called for it.
Good looking designs for the sake of looking good are a sin, and the more beautiful a site looks to the average person, the worse it probably is in terms of functionality and making money. Good design gets out of the way, it’s not there to be stared at and admired, that’s what art is for. Yes, you can combine some level of art but the more you do, the less it’s about function. And yes, designers will stare and admire good design, but that’s not the purpose of the function, just a subjective perspective outside of that. So when people say good design is beautiful, they’re looking at it from the perspective of a designer admiring the end result, not the perspective of a customer having a hassle free buying experience, or a user being able to get complex things done easily, or a business making more money.
@@JohnSmith-op7lsdesign is art wth yall talking about, otherwise why are all websites not black and white or same colour. It is all art that brings identity, the trick is to balance art and functionality thats the desl
I had to stop the video because that made no sense. You can make anything responsive if you wanted it to be. The "beautiful sites" he's talking about makes responsiveness harder, but it's not at all impossible.
no, I HATE THE AMAZON WEBSITE!!! idk if im the first to say it but it sucks. Its too wordy and feels like im still in the 2000s. I find it complicated and just disappointing but yh i get what you mean in functionality but still....
TH-cam is a beautiful website. It's well laid out. It has nice little animations. Google has a beautiful simple website. The search bar looks nice and inviting. It's polished. Netflix is a beautiful website. As is HBO's Max website. You can make a beautiful website that is still functional. Simplistic design is also beautiful. But.. these are also established sites to be fair. They weren't that beautiful once upon a time. Look at how TH-cam once looked. And there's obvious contrarian websites to your claim that functionality is all that matters. Amazon has an awful user experience design, it is cluttered and cumbersome to navigate, but they're a massive company because it has been around since the times when the web was overall a much more ugly and cluttered place, since users are used to it, don't go around changing what isn't broken - that'll only upset your massive user base (like every TH-cam redesign ever). I also think Facebook is pretty ugly, but it too has been around for so long that it doesn't matter. The users are already on the service, and since everyone else is, that's where your parents are going to go and sign up too, and not some new startup that looks nicer, even if they were a superior service in terms of user privacy and features. Think about it; How do you dethrone a website with 3 billion users? The top sites are at the top because they've been around for so long that it no longer matters if they are easy to navigate or on the eye. They already have the users. This applies to Craigslist too btw. It went up in 1995 if I recall right. A year before a very basic first implementation of CSS was there to style elements with. I do think functionality is the main thing to strive for and what should be the main focus of your design. Absolutely, that is very well said in the video. Is your site easy to navigate. Is it simple enough to not be distracting? Is your eyes drawn to the right locations without needing to seek to find what you are after? How much of an impact does beautifying it have on the user's time spent moving around the site. A ton of animations is only going to become annoying if you want to get from A to B on a site to do something, especially when they are longer than at most 0.3s. Still, we can have beautiful design as well as functionality. And to say you can't make a responsive beautiful website that looks good not only on your PC but also on your smartphone is a bit silly. That's perfectly doable. It's absolutely not impossible nor that overly complicated if you keep it in mind during your design phase. And you can absolutely optimize a beautiful website to not take long to load. What are you even on about. A bad developer might not optimize, but a good one will. How long does Netflix take to load for you? How about TH-cam? Think about all the graphics these sites are serving you at any given time. Icons, thumbnails, user profile images, video, etc. These sites are relatively well optimized to load on your devices quickly. ___ Btw. recommending fonts without even mentioning that you either will have to embed them by serving them from your domain or rely on third-party sites like Google to push them into your page is a bit of an oversight. You can't expect the users to have those fonts installed on their system. If you want to be safe and not deal with embedding or importing a font from a third-party service, "Arial, sans-serif" is one of the safer combinations. Your color section is also fundamentally missing the point of using color to draw attention to certain things. Look at what Netflix is coloring in their brand red. Sign In. Get Started. Your Plan Trip button isn't standing out. It's lost in the rest of the design. It all looks washed out and there's nothing that makes my eyes lock in on important elements that you want the user to engage with. You'll want to make sure calls to action, such as Plan Trip is immediately standing out.
Great points that I certainly missed. Btw it's not beautiful it's "beautiful", you know the designs we see on dribble. Check the beginning of the video.
Id be fine with beautiful or functional websites if they used more colors than white, black, "like this" red, "do this" blue, "buy now" green, and whatever their increasingly corporatized logos color is as their ENTIRE color pallette.
Because businesses exist to make money, not impress random people with how colorful of a site they can make. If you want art, go look at art. It’s like complaining that farm equipment isn’t more colorful and beautiful, it’s not made for that.
@@JohnSmith-op7ls Farm equipment is beautiful and id be fine if websites were treated more like farm equipment too instead of soulless husks. If theyre going to take half a gigabytes worth of code and advertizements out of my bandwidth,slow my computer to a crawl, steal my data, sell me subscription services, and make it as hard as possible to actually interact with the data by filling the site with everything BUT the shit i want to see, whenever i feel like opening the news that day, then they could at least be more creative about it. If not, they can either deal with a half decent css file, turning the website into a tool rather than a marketing platform, and cut 90% of their design budget or deal with the fact i have adblock, rss, scrapers, and custom css without trying to ban me from every site for having them enabled, before then proceeding to try and sell me back the functionality they took away. Calling these focus tested pieces of garbage designed to sell you the idea of "accessibility" the same as an actually functional tool or plugin, let alone industrial equipment is a joke.
It's not about design skills, it's about not making websites like artwork without looking at it from a UX perspective. All the best designing a crappy site. The top sites are well designed, they're just not artwork. "Beautiful" is an imprecise word
damn i watched that whole video in full screen and assumed the whole time that it was a at least 30k subscribers design youtuber and i scroll down only to see "996 view", damn ! you are amazing
It's funny how modern and professional design platforms are characterized by simple shapes and single basic colors. Windows XP had the shaded curved logo design and lower activity board. Today it's a single color with a simple 2D shape and no drawn shader or anything. Everything has become flat. Somehow that's professional and the modern trend of design for everyone to follow.
I would argue since Windows 7, UX has gotten worse. Modern UI philosophy in Windows 10 and onwards has been to make everything bigger and reduce the amount of information on screen. This leads to important settings being hidden away in layer after layer of submenus, making it even harder for the average user to stumble upon them.
@@TunaIRL When it works, which it often doesn't. Typing in the exact name of an app only for the search bar to default to searching for it on bing, then having to delete half of the word for it to refresh and find the actual file I want is something that happens to me almost daily.
This video is seriously lacking in good takes. I'd argue that websites with visually stunning designs, including animations, transitions, and an overall interactive experience, are far more likely to attract repeat visitors who actually use them. The examples you showcased are from brands that have dominated the market for years, with massive, loyal customer bases that aren't reflective of the broader landscape. A well-designed site can be both beautiful and easy to use, striking a perfect balance between aesthetics and functionality. It's worth noting how often people prefer working with visually appealing websites, even when their backends and functionality are subpar, rather than dealing with ugly, cluttered sites that are 50 times more functional.
Yeah I agree. I should have been more obvious that it's not beautiful, it's "beautiful". You know the crisp and mouth watering designs we see on dribble. On a stunning mockup, with no consideration for end users. They just exist as Art.
@@whosajidid argue that discord is a simple and beautiful website/app that went into a market dominanted by teamspeak and stole the entire userbase, because teamspeak was oldschool and badly designed
Bro you opened my eyes, even though I am not a frontend dev but when I see those dribble designs, I started thinking that way which is completely wrong and impractical.
To be fair there are a LOT of websites that are ugly and non functional, more than there are websites that are beautiful and non functional. I wouldn't define "ugly" as "minimalistic" though, usually those websites have weird artistic details that are just non untuitive, like big jpg images used as main buttons to sub-pages. I think optimization is the most important for good traffic, and that includes accessibility, things like translation, readable colors even to colorblind people, maybe even blind/deaf accessiblity
Great point. But these are mostly established brands that people would go through hoops to patronize. Being visually daring as a startup isn't that bad a wager
hello @Sajid You just drew a solid THICK LINE between content-visual websites and more functional websites, this video is very beneficial for those who are stepping in as new developers and designers, most of the beginners and mid-level developers and designers are getting confused because of these thin lines between 2 category websites, now you clear very extraordinary way. thanks, mate. ☕🍻
As a new dev I was struggling with my web design skills. This video gave me the confidence that I don't need to design something too fancy, I just need to design simple, user-friendly, functional websites.
Having a really complex GUI on your website can also make it less responsive, even if you, as a client have the best hardware. That's because the web server has to also work harder to send you the more complex GUI instead of the simple one. More complex GUI = slower response time = lag = fewer earning. Maybe we should think more of the ratio between code quantity / result in this specific case. And let's not forget that simpler GUIs are more likely to be compatible with older browser as well and the cycle goes on and on.
There's also one point to mention. Beautiful and flashy websites are maintenance nightmare. Unless the effects are simple enough to perform modularly, making all cohesive flashy animations and layouts only adds extra lines of possibly confusing codebase that will become impossible to organise. It can also break your website if you don't integrate it with forwards/backwards compatibility in mind. Turning off JavaScript will tell you right away of how broken most websites can be.
Great video thanks! I believe complex and fancy website designs are most suitable for portfolios, magazines, and studios where visuals are key and the goal is to impress visitors. However, for service-oriented or content-focused websites, simplicity is key for clarity and effectiveness.
I think the first mistake of the "beautiful" design aesthetic is its visual/sensory bias. It prioritizes wonder and "delight" (overused marketing word) and mostly ignores information architecture, functionality, and user experience. An effective design shouldn't draw attention to itself, it should just work. When it does, a different, more authentic beauty can emerge, putting users in "the zone." But I think that there's a place for these beautiful, impractical creations: they open our eyes to new possibilities. It's kind of like the relationship between haute couture and the retail clothing industry. Haute couture dreams and pushes boundaries, while retail is all about moving inventory.
Through the entirety of this video, I was baffled by you insisting that simple/usable and beautiful are opposites. They are the same thing to me. I am a programmer, not a designer, but I do need to make a portfolio website and the first thing I needed design for is to make it readable and navigable. That's what beautiful design is, not all of this animating mess that I see on every other website nowadays.
You can build good-looking websites as long as you keep the product objective, functions and user experience in mind. First the functionality and then the aesthetic.
A lot of these websites are visited because of their function not flair, so the design is boring and not that great an experience for users because they do choose function over form. But design should be informed by the need it fills. Like if I was doing a design for a band, or photographer, or web developer, or artist I would want to do form over function because that ultimately is what sells their product. If I was doing a design for green spaces and environmentalist ideals, then I would design something ideological that was intensely interactive and visually appealing. It's not about capturing every person but capturing the /right/ people for the brand. So I find your out look kind of bad.
Half agree with your points. But your comment tells me you are an experienced designer. And I have clearly mentioned if you know what you are doing. You can build something extraordinary. This video is for newcomers. Especially new devs.
Form should always follow function. You can design for aesthetics, but only after you've laid out the structure and foundation. Then there's the issue of usability, accessibility, etc. Balancing everything out takes years of experience and knowledge. Sure, there are a lot of pretty looking websites, but they're mostly geared towards a niche audience and customers. Study or invest time in learning UX, (even if you're focused on UI) it might save you headaches along the road and make your design approach more extensive and meaningful. Don't do something because it looks nice, do it because it serves a purpose or solve a user need. If your client doesn't approve a section in your design, set your ego aside, and revisit user research and data. Rinse, repeat. This has been eye opening to me years ago before stepping into UX. One day, I've visited websites of product and UX designers and was amazed on how much usable and user-centric their designs were. The designs were literally so easy to use and navigate. Luckily for me, I was able to set aside my bias and ego and never looked back since then.
This video touches so many good points, im not that experienced designer/dev but thankfully i had good design sense since start (probably cuz of my teachers), when ever im creating something my first goal is it should be working and then the second is improving ux the "beautiful design" has never touched my priority neither i'm good at it. I've eventried teaching my friends that, and now im supposed to be a speaker at a bootcamp, originally my team wanted me the for ui/ux cuz im good at designing (tho i suck at those personal beautiful designs) and my condition was doing it properly, like after the basic ui stuff i wanted to use ux and HCI to teach how to create good and practical designs rather than beautiful designs. Im hoping i won't f up tbh 💀
I just wanna confirm to fellow devs that this video is 100% valid, i know that because im both a front end dev and a UX/UI designer. For many years i tried to chase beautiful websites only to end up with a non-functional website that ends it up in the trash bin. leave the out of galaxy animations and design for branding on Dribbble or Behance (just the design, not to code it). for web apps to generate traffic and income you will need to drop all of that
Been thinking about this idea for a while, your video encapsulates my thoughts on the topic quite well! Although most of the flashy designs are just agencies trying to flex for clients, the true value in design comes from it's ability to make another human's life just a little bit easier.
I guess a distinction between beautiful and artsy needs to be made. Just because a website is beautiful doesn't mean it's not easy to use. I do agree, most of these "beautiful" websites are terrible for ux. I as a user dont even know what to do. But if done right, it can be the best experience there is. I feel like hitting the the right balance is difficult, but not impossible
Indeed. But check the start of the video where I showed what I mean by "beautiful". Newcomers often take inspiration from dribble. And we all know what those designs will do if implemented.
imagine if a new woo commerce website had Amazon's layout. I don't think it would do very well. Amazon has a big brand image, so they can get away with bad design. Smaller brands have to make up for that with good ui. Keeping things straight forward and accessable is important while also keeping the design simple. Now, that's what creates a good user experience.
-Bro but as a new designer I need skills on designing good looking websites, after that when I get into the company i will learn about these -But actually you are spitting facts, anyways freshers should learn to design a beautiful website to develop their own knowledge and skills. -thanks for sharing these information.
I think the sites you are talking about work more like webapps or apps, and for these types, obviously your point is correct. But when it comes to designing landing pages, you do need to make them interesting and aesthetically pleasing.
Experienced this firsthand with the playstation5 website. The assets take too long toad, decided to test it out on different smart TVs and it rendered a blank page on some e.g. TCL, it also looks completely different on mobile, so you have to re-orient yourself if you'd like to resume browsing on mobile for one reason or another. It looks really cool though.
Amazed with the video you took out me from design trap thank you now i can work without much worrying about the frontned. Please make these types of videos these are the vidoes no one is making
The core observations are still really important, but there’s an essential distinction between sites that facilitate an opportunity for beautiful design and those which are primarily providing a function. Most of the top sites in the world function in-and-of-themselves as the product that the service provides. A site can focus more on aesthetic when its purpose is to promote and spread awareness about the company, product, or offering that is not directly provided by the website itself. It also means it’s not a site that’s meant to be a reoccurring destination like Amazon, Google, TH-cam, etc. I also noticed you didn’t mention the presence of adult content sites and the fact that they have the most page visits as well as the lowest bounce rates. The conversation isn’t about the fact that they have better functionality than Google or Amazon. It’s about the site itself providing the service and experience that fulfills the visitor’s “needs.”
Very thoughtful. And I agree that content websites are a bit beautiful than product websites. I didn't exclusively mention adult content sites, as regular businesses and devs are not going to build a site in that category. However, I did mention the most important pillar of a website -Content. The USP if you will.
As always Sajid bhai banger of a vid, with to the point and concise info. Can't begin to explain how much your channel has helped in making me a better web dev
Just checked Shein's website and you were right it looked hideous but it served its purpose. How can web design clients understand this? "They just want their website to POP"
Damn, I never really comment on videos but your videos made me do it. I am currently a student and your videos literally taught me more things than my teachers did for a whole year lol.
This was a really helpful and informative video and I agree with all the points you made except the last one where you said Ask the customer if they want a website, this is fundamentally a wrong choice to make as a UX researcher during the research phase, You should ask them their problem and their expectations but never ask what kind of product they want. Let me explain why by a example, let's say I'm making a messaging and gaming social media app ( discord ) the majority of users might say they want a native desktop application as what gamers really like, but this would be infeasible as you have to make the mobile and webapps as well for the people who don't want to download it. Making a web app and then porting it to a native app solves all the problems that might have showed if you started by coding a native app itself then having to recode the same app for websites. I think another better example would be the case of Adobe apps, People really love native apps for designing and we are hating the shift from local to cloud and web based apps for this software. Here the consumers will clearly want native app ( as it's faster, more private and runs offline ) but the business model is clearly making a lot of money on web model ( Since you can't distribute pirated software as it's cloud based ). There are many many reason why you should never ask customers what they want and I listed a couple of them, Hope that helps
I was not talking about these technical decisions. I am saying, maybe your audience doesn't even need that app in the first place. If there is not a strong need for your website/app, don't build it.
this hit hard.... can't say I agree 100%. But definitely 90% (slight overgeneralizations). Good rare example of inconvenient truth that challenges, and changes my mind.
Great Video, i just try to make website and to much focus on the design while it make the web slower and too complicated for user. will definitely redesign it to make it more useful and generate good traffic.
This is such an amazing video. All useful information in one video with no filler information. I always had trouble visualizing while building a page from scratch without designers' help. As a frontend developer my mind just expanded and now I can make design decisions while building my projects. Keep up the good work and keep making videos like this.
Well its make sense now, i always look up to dribble for inspirations to create beautifull websites, until i realise i try to visit Real industry websites like Nike, Raw Fury, Steam, Microsoft it comes up to my mind they not like the designs on dribble with fancy layouts,until i watch this video and make sense now
Bro Best Knowledge Provided - A good Design websites are good but the thing with functional websites are they are made faster and deployed to the market quicker to than those with more design which require more time , Amazing Video
I am glad you liked the video. I will try to make a video that digs deeper into the "divisible by 4 rule". However, it's pretty common in the industry. If you wanna go down a rabbi thole, Search "4 pt grid system".
I cannot describe my feeling after watching this video!! Wow, damn it, I can't believe you're a normal person who posted a video. You're really cool and amazing. You made me feel confident. I made this video my first pillar for building and designing my website. Thank you and I wish you success.
Almost every website so looks bland, flat, and soulless these days. Rounded rectangles everywhere. I miss the early 2000's. We need more noobs building beautiful websites. :)
TH-cam recommended your video, and it's the best thing this platform has done. Your videos are awesome and are really helpful for people like me who are no designers. They're filled with valuable and actionable tips and tools. Keep doing the amazing work bro! Thank you
Damn should've thought about this earlier but atleast I haven't deployed. Beautiful designs are only good for ur resume just to impress recruiters and showcase my soft skills and problem solving.❤
Complication !== beautiful design. If you’re building a website (market, promoting, magazune, blog) it should be beautiful. If you’re building a web-app (eg. TH-cam, google calendar) it should work and be simple, yet it’s your option to make it beautiful, because it won’t make it neccessarily complex.
IMO the amazon website is not a good example of UX focused design, it's way too cluttered with messy information and it's often unclear where you will find the info you're actually looking for. Using only access counts as a metric of how good the website is can also be quite misleading, as the market presence of the brand behind the website will have a much bigger influence than the design of the website itself (as long as it is decently functional of course).
Also I think your argument on "content is king" is kinda mixing the responsibilities a little bit. "Displaying" content in a clear, useful and user-friendly manner is the designer's responsibility, "having" content is not, it depends on what the company has to offer. Just take the craigslist example, sure it may get a lot of daily accesses, while being very ugly, but that is because the "service" behind the website is popular and widely used, it doesn't mean that the website is the best it could be. A company's website can play a large role on establishing the brand image, an ugly website will not help with that, in fact it might even make the company seem sketchy. Overall I do agree with your argument that user experience is much more important than anything else in a website, but I wouldn't say that looking good does not matter at all. For example, craigslist does have pages for the region I live, but there's barely anything in them. Why? Because here we have other similar services, with better advertising, better branding and better looking websites, which don't lose at all in functionality. It's all a game of knowing what to focus on where. UX will always be first, but don't neglect UI entirely.
Also friendly edit just to say these are all simple suggestions, don't mean to sound like an angry criticist '^^
Oh wow. Thanks for adding this. I missed a lot of points in this video.
@whosajid but bro, as you talked, I am still with you are right more beautiful website takes more time to load and it is way complex to make it responsive
yes, but I think they did they investigation and research, with metrics and analytics and study of visitor interaction, the website serves to serve millions of types of customers/visitors. It works for everyone - that's the key. Its like wearing a custom designed clothes and general designed clothes, both do its job. But the latter fit most of us and sells more.
@@cmdaltctr that's the correct 👌
@@cmdaltctr yet the general designed clothes are still designed to be pleasing to the eye. no one likes to wear a trashbag
Bro, the websites you showcased are functional websites where people visit it to use, and they are just flat designs and the design decisions are made for that purpose only. The award winning websites are built to showcase their works, or about a brand(their focus is to impress users why to chose their brand), or explain a story or information in a visually stunning manner, or creating more inspirational ideas, passion projects that can make way for the future Web 4.0. I am too not a professional developer, but I am an UX designer and I know where to make what kind of designs. So both Flat designs and More flashy designs have different purposes and they have to be used only for those scenarios only and please don't mock award winning website designers or developers for that.
I am sorry, but my intentions are not to mock anyone. The video is for new devs who got caught up in the trap of dribble and Instagram. I know product websites are simpler and brand/landing page designs are flashy.
I absolutely agree with you that design for the purpose. I truly believe in the theory of "Form follows Function". At the end of the video I clarified that if you are a pro dev/designer you can create something extraordinary.
Thanks for your constructive feedback. I will try to do better next time.
... am I stupid or is this not exactly what he's saying in the video?
@@russianotter you're not stupid, this is indeed what the video is saying.
Thanks!
Some people sure know how to be dense, huh?
This video gives out the wrong message. The point you're trying to make is that "UI" shots in Dribbble designs look cool but functionally impractical. But what ends up conveying here is that good looking designs are a sin. And the examples you've shown here are websites that have existed for years if not decades. And these websites like Indian Railways are actually used cuz there is no other alternative. If I want to book a ticket to travel in a train, I must use indian railways even if its shit. These sites are used for so many years that even a minor design revamp can cause huge uproar cuz users are so used to that style of design for years and they are not ready to learn a new usage pattern. But showing these as examples and creating a new product with those same old ugly UI will cause more problems for the business. No user would be ready to use a new product that looks like its straight out of 90s with no CSS.
I agree, should have done a better job. Never thought that anyone would watch me rant.
@@whosajid lol what 😂
> And these websites like Indian Railways are actually used cuz there is no other alternative. If I want to book a ticket to travel in a train, I must use indian railways even if its shit.
It's shit not because of how it conveys needed information. Indian sites disable a lot of browser features which make them shit.
Besides, a lot of examples shown here have done slow changes over the years. Stop blaming users. Users are quite adept at adapting to new designs unless you majorly reshuffle the UI components. Like putting a logout button on the top-left because your artistic vision called for it.
Good looking designs for the sake of looking good are a sin, and the more beautiful a site looks to the average person, the worse it probably is in terms of functionality and making money.
Good design gets out of the way, it’s not there to be stared at and admired, that’s what art is for. Yes, you can combine some level of art but the more you do, the less it’s about function.
And yes, designers will stare and admire good design, but that’s not the purpose of the function, just a subjective perspective outside of that.
So when people say good design is beautiful, they’re looking at it from the perspective of a designer admiring the end result, not the perspective of a customer having a hassle free buying experience, or a user being able to get complex things done easily, or a business making more money.
@@JohnSmith-op7lsdesign is art wth yall talking about, otherwise why are all websites not black and white or same colour. It is all art that brings identity, the trick is to balance art and functionality thats the desl
>Finds the ugliest website ever
>Find out the entirety of internet will disappear if the website disappear.
lol
Why would the entire internet disappear if a website disappears? Am I missing something or did you just accidentally swapped the words
@@plumpus1634 youre just missing something
@@legendrags Read his comment, he literally says the the internet would disappear IF his website disappears. Clearly he swapped them
@@plumpus1634 he never said IF "HIS" website disappears. there are some websites that are needed. without them there aint much internet
Joke of the year: Beautiful websites don't respond to various screen sizes
Damn how is this still an issue, are we really in the 2020s ??!
"Flying cars", they said
@@ReachByteBurst which do you think we'll get first? I'm not sure, but if they don't come soon than I guess its up to us
I had to stop the video because that made no sense. You can make anything responsive if you wanted it to be. The "beautiful sites" he's talking about makes responsiveness harder, but it's not at all impossible.
no, I HATE THE AMAZON WEBSITE!!! idk if im the first to say it but it sucks. Its too wordy and feels like im still in the 2000s. I find it complicated and just disappointing but yh i get what you mean in functionality but still....
0:46 look carefully💀💀
04 - 08 - 14 🧐🧐🧐
TH-cam is a beautiful website. It's well laid out. It has nice little animations. Google has a beautiful simple website. The search bar looks nice and inviting. It's polished. Netflix is a beautiful website. As is HBO's Max website. You can make a beautiful website that is still functional. Simplistic design is also beautiful. But.. these are also established sites to be fair. They weren't that beautiful once upon a time. Look at how TH-cam once looked.
And there's obvious contrarian websites to your claim that functionality is all that matters. Amazon has an awful user experience design, it is cluttered and cumbersome to navigate, but they're a massive company because it has been around since the times when the web was overall a much more ugly and cluttered place, since users are used to it, don't go around changing what isn't broken - that'll only upset your massive user base (like every TH-cam redesign ever). I also think Facebook is pretty ugly, but it too has been around for so long that it doesn't matter. The users are already on the service, and since everyone else is, that's where your parents are going to go and sign up too, and not some new startup that looks nicer, even if they were a superior service in terms of user privacy and features. Think about it; How do you dethrone a website with 3 billion users? The top sites are at the top because they've been around for so long that it no longer matters if they are easy to navigate or on the eye. They already have the users. This applies to Craigslist too btw. It went up in 1995 if I recall right. A year before a very basic first implementation of CSS was there to style elements with.
I do think functionality is the main thing to strive for and what should be the main focus of your design. Absolutely, that is very well said in the video. Is your site easy to navigate. Is it simple enough to not be distracting? Is your eyes drawn to the right locations without needing to seek to find what you are after? How much of an impact does beautifying it have on the user's time spent moving around the site. A ton of animations is only going to become annoying if you want to get from A to B on a site to do something, especially when they are longer than at most 0.3s.
Still, we can have beautiful design as well as functionality. And to say you can't make a responsive beautiful website that looks good not only on your PC but also on your smartphone is a bit silly. That's perfectly doable. It's absolutely not impossible nor that overly complicated if you keep it in mind during your design phase. And you can absolutely optimize a beautiful website to not take long to load. What are you even on about. A bad developer might not optimize, but a good one will. How long does Netflix take to load for you? How about TH-cam? Think about all the graphics these sites are serving you at any given time. Icons, thumbnails, user profile images, video, etc. These sites are relatively well optimized to load on your devices quickly.
___
Btw. recommending fonts without even mentioning that you either will have to embed them by serving them from your domain or rely on third-party sites like Google to push them into your page is a bit of an oversight. You can't expect the users to have those fonts installed on their system. If you want to be safe and not deal with embedding or importing a font from a third-party service, "Arial, sans-serif" is one of the safer combinations.
Your color section is also fundamentally missing the point of using color to draw attention to certain things. Look at what Netflix is coloring in their brand red. Sign In. Get Started. Your Plan Trip button isn't standing out. It's lost in the rest of the design. It all looks washed out and there's nothing that makes my eyes lock in on important elements that you want the user to engage with. You'll want to make sure calls to action, such as Plan Trip is immediately standing out.
Great points that I certainly missed.
Btw it's not beautiful it's "beautiful", you know the designs we see on dribble. Check the beginning of the video.
Id be fine with beautiful or functional websites if they used more colors than white, black, "like this" red, "do this" blue, "buy now" green, and whatever their increasingly corporatized logos color is as their ENTIRE color pallette.
so true, lol
Is there another option? I have a black and broken white color pallet
@@monsieurLDNjust use more colours
Because businesses exist to make money, not impress random people with how colorful of a site they can make. If you want art, go look at art.
It’s like complaining that farm equipment isn’t more colorful and beautiful, it’s not made for that.
@@JohnSmith-op7ls Farm equipment is beautiful and id be fine if websites were treated more like farm equipment too instead of soulless husks.
If theyre going to take half a gigabytes worth of code and advertizements out of my bandwidth,slow my computer to a crawl, steal my data, sell me subscription services, and make it as hard as possible to actually interact with the data by filling the site with everything BUT the shit i want to see, whenever i feel like opening the news that day, then they could at least be more creative about it. If not, they can either deal with a half decent css file, turning the website into a tool rather than a marketing platform, and cut 90% of their design budget or deal with the fact i have adblock, rss, scrapers, and custom css without trying to ban me from every site for having them enabled, before then proceeding to try and sell me back the functionality they took away.
Calling these focus tested pieces of garbage designed to sell you the idea of "accessibility" the same as an actually functional tool or plugin, let alone industrial equipment is a joke.
1:35 why is the hub higher than Twitter 😭
Hahah
It's much more useful.
@@user-nx9gw9ej7l 😏
@@user-nx9gw9ej7lTwitter is catching up, though.
The hub provides an excellent services, probably lol.
this will be medical for some frontend developers without designing skills, like me
Thanks a lot
It's not about design skills, it's about not making websites like artwork without looking at it from a UX perspective. All the best designing a crappy site. The top sites are well designed, they're just not artwork. "Beautiful" is an imprecise word
Wat? That makes no sense. I'll stop watching this now, it's not for me.
@@entx8491 Cringe
Medicinal
damn i watched that whole video in full screen and assumed the whole time that it was a at least 30k subscribers design youtuber and i scroll down only to see "996 view", damn ! you are amazing
Thanks for watching, and putting a smile on my face ❤️.
This comment hit me hard. I expected a lot more visibility too. @whosajid Nicw work man.
Thanks@@sanjidlalu
Now it's at 76k views, and I have been super inspired.
Have to do with shitty AI voice, it beomes annoying really quick.
It's funny how modern and professional design platforms are characterized by simple shapes and single basic colors.
Windows XP had the shaded curved logo design and lower activity board.
Today it's a single color with a simple 2D shape and no drawn shader or anything.
Everything has become flat. Somehow that's professional and the modern trend of design for everyone to follow.
Yeah, but the user experience has gone up. I mean, it's easier to use modern apps and websites compare to the Websites from the 2000s.
I would argue since Windows 7, UX has gotten worse. Modern UI philosophy in Windows 10 and onwards has been to make everything bigger and reduce the amount of information on screen. This leads to important settings being hidden away in layer after layer of submenus, making it even harder for the average user to stumble upon them.
@@Fasteroid yeah, that's a fair point. Windows 10 UI is not that user friendly. Everything is hidden in layers upon layers.
@@FasteroidThe new search basically solves all of that
@@TunaIRL When it works, which it often doesn't. Typing in the exact name of an app only for the search bar to default to searching for it on bing, then having to delete half of the word for it to refresh and find the actual file I want is something that happens to me almost daily.
the best video I've seen in my life about design, and "design is not art" was like a punch in the stomach
You really compiled all the things I learnt on my first front-end job into one video. This is great for new devs!
Great to hear!
This video is seriously lacking in good takes. I'd argue that websites with visually stunning designs, including animations, transitions, and an overall interactive experience, are far more likely to attract repeat visitors who actually use them. The examples you showcased are from brands that have dominated the market for years, with massive, loyal customer bases that aren't reflective of the broader landscape. A well-designed site can be both beautiful and easy to use, striking a perfect balance between aesthetics and functionality. It's worth noting how often people prefer working with visually appealing websites, even when their backends and functionality are subpar, rather than dealing with ugly, cluttered sites that are 50 times more functional.
Yeah I agree. I should have been more obvious that it's not beautiful, it's "beautiful". You know the crisp and mouth watering designs we see on dribble. On a stunning mockup, with no consideration for end users. They just exist as Art.
@@whosajidid argue that discord is a simple and beautiful website/app that went into a market dominanted by teamspeak and stole the entire userbase, because teamspeak was oldschool and badly designed
Bro you opened my eyes, even though I am not a frontend dev but when I see those dribble designs, I started thinking that way which is completely wrong and impractical.
To be fair there are a LOT of websites that are ugly and non functional, more than there are websites that are beautiful and non functional. I wouldn't define "ugly" as "minimalistic" though, usually those websites have weird artistic details that are just non untuitive, like big jpg images used as main buttons to sub-pages. I think optimization is the most important for good traffic, and that includes accessibility, things like translation, readable colors even to colorblind people, maybe even blind/deaf accessiblity
100%
💯
Great point. But these are mostly established brands that people would go through hoops to patronize.
Being visually daring as a startup isn't that bad a wager
100%
As a startup you want to ship fast
hello @Sajid You just drew a solid THICK LINE between content-visual websites and more functional websites, this video is very beneficial for those who are stepping in as new developers and designers, most of the beginners and mid-level developers and designers are getting confused because of these thin lines between 2 category websites, now you clear very extraordinary way. thanks, mate. ☕🍻
Cheers!
As a new dev I was struggling with my web design skills. This video gave me the confidence that I don't need to design something too fancy, I just need to design simple, user-friendly, functional websites.
Most practical website design tips shared under 20 min, Thank you!
Cheers mate !
Having a really complex GUI on your website can also make it less responsive, even if you, as a client have the best hardware. That's because the web server has to also work harder to send you the more complex GUI instead of the simple one.
More complex GUI = slower response time = lag = fewer earning.
Maybe we should think more of the ratio between code quantity / result in this specific case. And let's not forget that simpler GUIs are more likely to be compatible with older browser as well and the cycle goes on and on.
I think you argument could rather be summed in: Efficiency > Ergonomics > Beauty
There's also one point to mention. Beautiful and flashy websites are maintenance nightmare. Unless the effects are simple enough to perform modularly, making all cohesive flashy animations and layouts only adds extra lines of possibly confusing codebase that will become impossible to organise. It can also break your website if you don't integrate it with forwards/backwards compatibility in mind. Turning off JavaScript will tell you right away of how broken most websites can be.
Great video thanks!
I believe complex and fancy website designs are most suitable for portfolios, magazines, and studios where visuals are key and the goal is to impress visitors. However, for service-oriented or content-focused websites, simplicity is key for clarity and effectiveness.
You said it man.
I think the first mistake of the "beautiful" design aesthetic is its visual/sensory bias. It prioritizes wonder and "delight" (overused marketing word) and mostly ignores information architecture, functionality, and user experience. An effective design shouldn't draw attention to itself, it should just work. When it does, a different, more authentic beauty can emerge, putting users in "the zone." But I think that there's a place for these beautiful, impractical creations: they open our eyes to new possibilities. It's kind of like the relationship between haute couture and the retail clothing industry. Haute couture dreams and pushes boundaries, while retail is all about moving inventory.
Through the entirety of this video, I was baffled by you insisting that simple/usable and beautiful are opposites. They are the same thing to me. I am a programmer, not a designer, but I do need to make a portfolio website and the first thing I needed design for is to make it readable and navigable.
That's what beautiful design is, not all of this animating mess that I see on every other website nowadays.
Yeah, I was saying beautiful in quotes. Like the designs on dribble. Love your perspective.
The fact that the person reading the script didn't bother to fix the "English as a second language" grammar.
how tf do you only have 58 subscribers (now 59 XD ) this is amazing!!!!!!!!
Thanks a lot:)
Just discovered this channel and I am probably subscriber #5041 :)
You’d find out most people who agree in the comments are developers. Developers usually would take the path of least resistance
as a web developer who don't really know much about design, I think I have learnt a lot in this video alone💯💯
Glad to hear that!
You can build good-looking websites as long as you keep the product objective, functions and user experience in mind. First the functionality and then the aesthetic.
probably one of the most underrated videos out there! amazing video!
I'd argue that large companies hire people who design boring websites because they see boring websites as more common and therefore more profitable.
A lot of these websites are visited because of their function not flair, so the design is boring and not that great an experience for users because they do choose function over form. But design should be informed by the need it fills. Like if I was doing a design for a band, or photographer, or web developer, or artist I would want to do form over function because that ultimately is what sells their product. If I was doing a design for green spaces and environmentalist ideals, then I would design something ideological that was intensely interactive and visually appealing. It's not about capturing every person but capturing the /right/ people for the brand. So I find your out look kind of bad.
Half agree with your points. But your comment tells me you are an experienced designer. And I have clearly mentioned if you know what you are doing. You can build something extraordinary.
This video is for newcomers. Especially new devs.
Beautiful design is intentional design. Without too much fluff. Flowers are colorful for a reason. Male birds have beautiful plummage for a reason.
this is a great video, I am always biased towards crazy designs because of my art hobby but you give me a new perspective to see my profession.
UX above everything
Form should always follow function. You can design for aesthetics, but only after you've laid out the structure and foundation. Then there's the issue of usability, accessibility, etc. Balancing everything out takes years of experience and knowledge.
Sure, there are a lot of pretty looking websites, but they're mostly geared towards a niche audience and customers.
Study or invest time in learning UX, (even if you're focused on UI) it might save you headaches along the road and make your design approach more extensive and meaningful. Don't do something because it looks nice, do it because it serves a purpose or solve a user need. If your client doesn't approve a section in your design, set your ego aside, and revisit user research and data. Rinse, repeat.
This has been eye opening to me years ago before stepping into UX. One day, I've visited websites of product and UX designers and was amazed on how much usable and user-centric their designs were. The designs were literally so easy to use and navigate.
Luckily for me, I was able to set aside my bias and ego and never looked back since then.
I can tell, you know what you are doing. Very insightful!
This video touches so many good points, im not that experienced designer/dev but thankfully i had good design sense since start (probably cuz of my teachers), when ever im creating something my first goal is it should be working and then the second is improving ux the "beautiful design" has never touched my priority neither i'm good at it. I've eventried teaching my friends that, and now im supposed to be a speaker at a bootcamp, originally my team wanted me the for ui/ux cuz im good at designing (tho i suck at those personal beautiful designs) and my condition was doing it properly, like after the basic ui stuff i wanted to use ux and HCI to teach how to create good and practical designs rather than beautiful designs. Im hoping i won't f up tbh 💀
I just wanna confirm to fellow devs that this video is 100% valid, i know that because im both a front end dev and a UX/UI designer. For many years i tried to chase beautiful websites only to end up with a non-functional website that ends it up in the trash bin. leave the out of galaxy animations and design for branding on Dribbble or Behance (just the design, not to code it). for web apps to generate traffic and income you will need to drop all of that
"It doesn't suppose to look beautiful, it just have to work"
Wow. As a developer (and wanna be indie dev), it was eye-opening.
Thank for practical tips! especially 4 px space 9:00
Amazon is an example of how a website shouldn't be honestly. We use it for the convenience of the offer, not because of the UX.
The video basically tells us the fact that your priority should be UX over UI
And I was asking myself why internet looks so boring nowadays...
Dear Sajid, what you are putting is a great content. Keep doing it.
Functionality = true beauty
Yeah functional and user friendly
Been thinking about this idea for a while, your video encapsulates my thoughts on the topic quite well! Although most of the flashy designs are just agencies trying to flex for clients, the true value in design comes from it's ability to make another human's life just a little bit easier.
Well said!
Bro, I gotta re-watch this until I understand perfectly everything that you said, this is a very good Wallah. +1 subscriber
This was exactly what I needed to hear, I can't explain how perfect this was for me.
UI/UX design is more applied to mobile apps than websites, good content i loved it
Loved this video, amazing content Sajid.
I guess a distinction between beautiful and artsy needs to be made. Just because a website is beautiful doesn't mean it's not easy to use. I do agree, most of these "beautiful" websites are terrible for ux. I as a user dont even know what to do. But if done right, it can be the best experience there is. I feel like hitting the the right balance is difficult, but not impossible
Indeed. But check the start of the video where I showed what I mean by "beautiful". Newcomers often take inspiration from dribble. And we all know what those designs will do if implemented.
I really appreciated this youtube video. I've learnt a lot and gained some value from it. I look forward to seeing more content like this.
sometimes youtube decides to show me such useful and fun to watch bangers like this. Simple and very informational
❤️
imagine if a new woo commerce website had Amazon's layout. I don't think it would do very well. Amazon has a big brand image, so they can get away with bad design. Smaller brands have to make up for that with good ui. Keeping things straight forward and accessable is important while also keeping the design simple. Now, that's what creates a good user experience.
You’ve opened my eyes. Thanks
I saw this video in the past and I saved it. For days I have been looking for where I saved video. I am glad I found it again!
Your videos are eye opening. May God reward you brother ❤
this video is absolute fantastic... hats off!!!
Thanks 😊
-Bro but as a new designer I need skills on designing good looking websites, after that when I get into the company i will learn about these
-But actually you are spitting facts, anyways freshers should learn to design a beautiful website to develop their own knowledge and skills.
-thanks for sharing these information.
As a new designer you should be focused on design principles, right.
@@whosajid yes bro
I think the sites you are talking about work more like webapps or apps, and for these types, obviously your point is correct. But when it comes to designing landing pages, you do need to make them interesting and aesthetically pleasing.
This was insanely informative! Subbed.
Glad you enjoyed!
Experienced this firsthand with the playstation5 website. The assets take too long toad, decided to test it out on different smart TVs and it rendered a blank page on some e.g. TCL, it also looks completely different on mobile, so you have to re-orient yourself if you'd like to resume browsing on mobile for one reason or another. It looks really cool though.
Amazed with the video you took out me from design trap thank you now i can work without much worrying about the frontned. Please make these types of videos these are the vidoes no one is making
The core observations are still really important, but there’s an essential distinction between sites that facilitate an opportunity for beautiful design and those which are primarily providing a function. Most of the top sites in the world function in-and-of-themselves as the product that the service provides. A site can focus more on aesthetic when its purpose is to promote and spread awareness about the company, product, or offering that is not directly provided by the website itself. It also means it’s not a site that’s meant to be a reoccurring destination like Amazon, Google, TH-cam, etc. I also noticed you didn’t mention the presence of adult content sites and the fact that they have the most page visits as well as the lowest bounce rates. The conversation isn’t about the fact that they have better functionality than Google or Amazon. It’s about the site itself providing the service and experience that fulfills the visitor’s “needs.”
Very thoughtful. And I agree that content websites are a bit beautiful than product websites.
I didn't exclusively mention adult content sites, as regular businesses and devs are not going to build a site in that category. However, I did mention the most important pillar of a website -Content. The USP if you will.
The words you said are totally correct. Here i found you the best ever content creator on youtube with purity ...
Oh wow, thanks!
I learn something new each time i watch this
I'm not even done with the vedio and I've learnt very important things
UI vs UX, yeah I’m picking up what you’re laying down.
As always Sajid bhai banger of a vid, with to the point and concise info. Can't begin to explain how much your channel has helped in making me a better web dev
Just checked Shein's website and you were right it looked hideous but it served its purpose. How can web design clients understand this? "They just want their website to POP"
Talk their language: Money. Explain why this will not work for their r users → less engagement → less revenue
Damn, I never really comment on videos but your videos made me do it. I am currently a student and your videos literally taught me more things than my teachers did for a whole year lol.
OMG 🤩
This was a really helpful and informative video and I agree with all the points you made except the last one where you said Ask the customer if they want a website, this is fundamentally a wrong choice to make as a UX researcher during the research phase, You should ask them their problem and their expectations but never ask what kind of product they want. Let me explain why by a example, let's say I'm making a messaging and gaming social media app ( discord ) the majority of users might say they want a native desktop application as what gamers really like, but this would be infeasible as you have to make the mobile and webapps as well for the people who don't want to download it. Making a web app and then porting it to a native app solves all the problems that might have showed if you started by coding a native app itself then having to recode the same app for websites. I think another better example would be the case of Adobe apps, People really love native apps for designing and we are hating the shift from local to cloud and web based apps for this software. Here the consumers will clearly want native app ( as it's faster, more private and runs offline ) but the business model is clearly making a lot of money on web model ( Since you can't distribute pirated software as it's cloud based ). There are many many reason why you should never ask customers what they want and I listed a couple of them, Hope that helps
I was not talking about these technical decisions. I am saying, maybe your audience doesn't even need that app in the first place. If there is not a strong need for your website/app, don't build it.
this hit hard.... can't say I agree 100%. But definitely 90% (slight overgeneralizations). Good rare example of inconvenient truth that challenges, and changes my mind.
Great Video, i just try to make website and to much focus on the design while it make the web slower and too complicated for user. will definitely redesign it to make it more useful and generate good traffic.
Design does matter. but I hate over designing thats you mentioned as "Beautiful"
From 14:35 on, you switched the primary and secondary colors. The content was dark green (the real primary color) and then it went the lighter green
This is such an amazing video. All useful information in one video with no filler information. I always had trouble visualizing while building a page from scratch without designers' help. As a frontend developer my mind just expanded and now I can make design decisions while building my projects. Keep up the good work and keep making videos like this.
this chanel is the discovery of the year for me , keep up the good work
Soo quality content, If i speed it up, its like knowledge verrryyyyy fast.
Well its make sense now, i always look up to dribble for inspirations to create beautifull websites, until i realise i try to visit Real industry websites like Nike, Raw Fury, Steam, Microsoft it comes up to my mind they not like the designs on dribble with fancy layouts,until i watch this video and make sense now
Bro Best Knowledge Provided - A good Design websites are good but the thing with functional websites are they are made faster and deployed to the market quicker to than those with more design which require more time , Amazing Video
Yes, definitely
Thanks for this video, loved it. And I would like to request the 'divisible by 4 rule' video please. 😁
I am glad you liked the video. I will try to make a video that digs deeper into the "divisible by 4 rule". However, it's pretty common in the industry. If you wanna go down a rabbi thole, Search "4 pt grid system".
Agreed Word for word
Ps: any new designer should try Refactoring UI by Steve Schoger and Adam Wathan (Tailwind guys)
Great suggestion 👍
Imagine the state of web design being so bad that people think that form and function are _orthogonal_ 😂
Nobody thinks that Mr. Orthogonal
I cannot describe my feeling after watching this video!! Wow, damn it, I can't believe you're a normal person who posted a video. You're really cool and amazing. You made me feel confident. I made this video my first pillar for building and designing my website. Thank you and I wish you success.
The starting point of saying that design is not art is insane 😂
Almost every website so looks bland, flat, and soulless these days. Rounded rectangles everywhere. I miss the early 2000's. We need more noobs building beautiful websites. :)
Nostalgia, eh?
TH-cam recommended your video, and it's the best thing this platform has done.
Your videos are awesome and are really helpful for people like me who are no designers. They're filled with valuable and actionable tips and tools.
Keep doing the amazing work bro! Thank you
nice insight. mind revealing. thanks.
Damn should've thought about this earlier but atleast I haven't deployed. Beautiful designs are only good for ur resume just to impress recruiters and showcase my soft skills and problem solving.❤
4:07 Not me ... what is going on? Am I abnormal?
Complication !== beautiful design.
If you’re building a website (market, promoting, magazune, blog) it should be beautiful.
If you’re building a web-app (eg. TH-cam, google calendar) it should work and be simple, yet it’s your option to make it beautiful, because it won’t make it neccessarily complex.
Yep, covered it in Site vs App video. But in this video, I was ranting mostly about dribble designs. You know what I showed at the start.
THIS IS THE VIDEO I REALLY NEED RIGHT NOW. THANKS !
Thank you so much for this video. It's a game changer
You saved my life bro.. thanks ♥
The fact that pornhub is the world's largest website is troubling.