Last year Jason Fried made a rather bold statement declaring the Drudge Report as one of the best designed sites on the web. I had recently been hired as a Designer, and I didn’t quite know what to think of this post. My boss explained to me (and 85,000+ people) that he thought the Drudge Report was one of the best designed sites on the web, and I disagreed with the statement.
It was only after launching the design for the 37signals site that I started to reflect back on the original sentiments of that Drudge Report post. Jason explained that the Drudge Report stands apart from the “news” pack. It is unique in its design—albeit plain—compared to the CSS mastery of other news sites. This simple and plain uniqueness actually makes it memorable.
It looks good, but what did it say?
We went through hundreds of designs for the Highrise, Basecamp, and 37signals marketing sites. I thought many of these designs were visually successful. Ultimately most were rejected on the basis of clarity. Each time Jason and I would have a design review he would inevitably ask, “What is this trying to say? Why is this important?” Then he would follow-up with the statement “Clarity above all else!” This would often result in making the font bigger, removing an illustration I spent hours on, or Jason rewriting complete pages of text.
It was during this time that I’d think about the sites that I appreciated from a design standpoint. Many of them are personal blogs or cool brochure sites. I began to realize that these sites displayed information well, but I could not exactly remember what they were about. They sure were pretty with fantastic CSS, but I can’t really remember what what the site said. Did it say anything?
I started to recall those amazing Flash Sites of the Day. You know those sites that get passed around via IM in your office on a slow day? Simply amazing design and programming. Problem is: I can’t for the life of me remember what those URLs were–much less the company/product that was being featured! Isn’t that the point with those sites? That the impact should be profound so that you remember Product or Company X?
And so it was in revisiting Jason’s Drudge-Report-Loving-Post that I finally began to understand: It doesn’t matter how awesome or slick the CSS or ActionScript on your site is. You have to make your site memorable. Your site has to speak clearly. Otherwise it may just end up as a web monument awaiting for another beautiful site to take its place.
Dave Malouf
on 27 Mar 09But doesn’t the site need to be memorable. Forget “flashiness”, the Drudge report breaks some major rules of graphic design:
poor typography Weak use of line spacing lack of visual hierarchyNotice I mentioned nothing about interactivity or even color.
I think they could do some simple things and actually live up to what Jason proclaimed. They DO stand out and it does work, but it is not great design. Mainly do to the fact of how hard it is to read.
Let’s applaud successes, but let’s not in so doing undermine important parts of what we know about basic design principles that have been proven important for a good hundred years.
—dave
Joshua Blankenship
on 27 Mar 09I work for a church, handling design and web and such. And not to sound smug, but it isn’t hard to rise above the pack in terms of design and web stuff in church world, so it’s pretty easy for churches to get trapped thinking “if our design totally rules, that’s a win.”
Only it’s not. If people make steps of faith or connect with your church it’s a win. And all the features, slick CSS, pretty Photoshop work and well-intentioned UI in the world won’t make it a win if people aren’t connecting.
George
on 28 Mar 09Drudge is only successful due to the reputation of the site, and the content it breaks. Due to the sheer traffic of the site, it wouldn’t make sense for them to juice it up with a bunch of graphics, but it definitely could benefit from some simple CSS tweaks. The entire site consists of 90% link tags and break tags. That’s it.
With sites as popular as Drudge, it’s not the design that makes them what they are, but they could definitely benefit even more by using simple design techniques to make their site even more successful.
JD
on 28 Mar 09Joshua Blankenship, right on. You hit the nail on the head.
Andy Gongea
on 28 Mar 09You got that right. Cheers!
Michael
on 28 Mar 09The problem with the Drudge Report isn’t that it doesn’t use the coolest CSS or flashiest Flash, it’s that the design makes the site difficult to use. That’s quite something considering the simplicity of what the site actually is. It’s a straightforward case of form over function, and the form is pretty awful.
Wolf
on 28 Mar 09I find it noteworthy that you mention one of the underlying technical aspects of integrating a layout (CSS) three times, while it is completely irrelevant to your statements. CSS is just a technical layer. Talking about design decisions here.
You didn’t go through hundreds of designs, but hundreds of (sometimes tiny) design revisions.
But I see what you mean.
Ryan
on 28 Mar 09Sure they said something. They said, “I know my design and CSS,” which is exactly what they need to say if they are portfolio sites. It’s not a bad thing, it’s just a different objective.
Julian Russell
on 28 Mar 09Some web design feeds lived in my RSS reader for a while, until I realised they were all design firm websites, which are great in the way Ryan mentioned, but I soon twigged that looking at those designs wasn’t going to help me design great webapps.
A day where I delete code is a great day, and I suspect a day you remove a redundant visual element is the same. Ahhh.. the code/design can breathe a little easier now.
Jim Jeffers
on 28 Mar 09Wow! My sentiments exactly. I’ve been striving to explain this to my peers when we discuss site designs. Excellent essay.
eraevion
on 28 Mar 09Hell yes, how about we’d drop our CSS codes and be unique?
Come on, guys, this Drudge Report thing is just awful. It brokes almost all of the design rules we learned, it’s ‘99 style and you say it’s one of the best designs ever.
Being memorable is definitely important, but making our design memorable and good looking at once – that’s the goal.
Charly
on 28 Mar 09the site is awful, User experience very bad. I would not even call that a design…so the best design ? probably not, the site just breaks rules, that’s all.
Martin Ringlein
on 28 Mar 09You really think it was the design (aesthetic visual) of the drudge report that has made it memorable? You really think it was the design that made those flash sites of yesterday less memorable?
It was the content! The drudge report was always infamous because of the content and that is why it has become a house-hold name (among our types), not because of the design—the same goes for CraigsList.
And yes, actually … some of us still do remember the names of the flash sites of yesterday that blew our minds simply because of the visual aesthetics. You can’t honestly tell me that as a web designer that “2advanced” means nothing to you!
You can have “clarity” and great design. Design is about “visual communication”—you can be aesthetically beautiful and convey your message; and let the aesthetics help better convey the message. Don’t let Jason change your perspective on design.
daniel lopes
on 28 Mar 09great point of view
Tim
on 28 Mar 09A weekend post, that must be a first.
Harold
on 28 Mar 09Great write-up Jamie. It reminds me a lot of what Noah Stokes has experienced in this last week with his portfolio site.
Harold
on 28 Mar 09Apparently I got that link wrong, the site is here.
Anonymous Coward
on 28 Mar 09How do you make a website memorable?
By presenting quality original content.
Aesthetics make me go “WOW!” at first, but rarely do I remember a website because of that. More often it is original content, delivered in a well-designed format, that has been most memorable.
Don Schenck
on 28 Mar 09Thanks for the post! I’m working on my own web site product and this is timely and reassuring.
Mark
on 28 Mar 09I agree, it’s the content or originality of the site that makes it memorable. Sometimes design plays a role in that, sometimes it doesn’t.
Germán
on 28 Mar 09Totally agree, I’d just add a link to Kathy Sierra’s great article Is ... but is it memorable?
Pies
on 28 Mar 09I think it’s important to keep in mind what is the actual point of what you’re doing. You might be designing a site for a wine lovers community, mostly men, where they can learn about wines and talk about them. You might be designing a site for children 8-15 can play games, win prizes etc. You’re never just designing “a website.”
A defined audience implies both the message, and the effective ways of delivering it. Goals imply tasks and the tools to help users complete those tasks. And the type of interaction (play, work, social) implies the mood of the design.
Sebhelyesfarku
on 29 Mar 09Yeah, shit on the middle of the table at a dinner, it’s gonna be memorable!
Matt
on 29 Mar 09The design of the Drudge report is surely memorable… it’s design is shockingly different from every other notable news site on the web.
So, in that sense, you can call it a “good design.”
The problem is, I don’t think that is a useful definition of “good design”, since it only works exactly ONE time.
In other words, Drudge’s design isn’t “different and useful”, “different and informative”, or “different and compelling”. It’s just DIFFERENT.
If anyone else tried to follow Drudge’s lead, then their design would just be lousy. And if enough people tried, their design would be lousy, and Drudge’s design would come to be regarded as banal.
Compare that to 37signals design ethos over the years. Their design was different too – less overwrought, simpler, more focused. But it was different AND COMPELLING. It communicated more effectively. And, it was a model other people could follow, or at least use to inform their own design decisions. It was design you could learn from.
That, to me, is “good design”
In other words – if you do something completely different from everyone else,
Terry Sutton
on 29 Mar 09This is very well put, but the point is really diminished when speaking in reference to the Drudge Report.
There’s a fine line between visual appeal and clarity – and the line works both ways. The drudge report is soooo visually unappealing, I can’t even bring myself to look at it.
CJ Curtis
on 29 Mar 09A lot of good points, but I don’t understand the relevance the Drudge Report in this post. From a design standards point of view, the Drudge is, was, and forever will be a P.O.S. Move on.
Cody
on 30 Mar 09Not sure ‘being memorable’ should be a goal of design. I believe business goals and usability (and to a lesser degree aesthetics) should trump trying to make your design memorable.
Keith
on 30 Mar 09I don’t see how being memorable, meeting business goals, and achieving usability while also being aesthetically pleasing are mutually exclusive.
A lot of people used to (still do?) get fired up over Jakob Nielsen’s recommendations because they believe he’s pitting functional design against aesthetically pleasing design.
All sites have a purpose (or should). The design is there to lift up that purpose for the users. The point isn’t that Drudge Report looks awesome. The point is that the design supports the expected functionality for the users that visit. The point isn’t that a site is beautiful/usable/whatever else you want. The point is that the design of the site supports the expected functionality for users that visit it.
Crate & Barrel wins a lot of design awards. But I’d be willing to bet that Crate & Barrel’s management would pull the plug if the site wasn’t generating a steady revenue stream. It’s not there to win design awards. It’s there to sell which mean providing a catalog of products and a way for people to either find a store to buy them or better yet buy them online.
Design is very interesting because personal preference is such a strong force, and yet such an insignificant quality at the same time.
Anonymous Coward
on 30 Mar 09Jamie – so clarity & memorability AND elegant design are mutually exclusive? That’s how I 1st read your post. Though I’m thinking what you’re saying it the form needs to follow a clear purpose. And most sites looks sexy, but lack substance. Right?
Chris Ellingsworth
on 31 Mar 09Thanks for explaining that from a designer’s perspective. You mentioned an illustration that you had spent hours on that didn’t make it into the final design. Does that leave you feeling creatively or artistically unsatisfied? In other words, is the process more or less enjoyable?
I’m asking because I feel like I must compromise creativity for clarity. In order to meet my creative needs, I do work that isn’t paid for.
Thanks again for the post, the language you used really resonated with me.
JD
on 31 Mar 09Chris Ellingsworth, of course there is always a feeling of slight disappointment when something I’ve worked on didn’t make it into the final version. Maybe what you were doing didn’t make sense today, but possibly the next time you put forth the effort it’ll work out. It’s just like life: You win some, you lose some.
Don’t get disheartened.
This discussion is closed.