High Class vs. Low Class Design

I'm having to write this post in TextEdit b/c the wireless is down here. I am REALLY REALLY trying not to be whiny, but c'mon peeps. This is a web conference.

Here in 18ABCD again for one of those nature vs. nurture type debates. They're calling it "High Class and Low Class Web Design." The name of the panel doesn't really tell you what the heck this is about. It is about the difference between design theories on various sites.

Highlight: Khoi Vinh, NYTimes design director and blogger at Subtraction.com, is on the panel.

Question: Do Craigslist and eBay look so crappy on purpose? Can they just not afford good design? What is "good design"?

Maybe we'll find out here shortly. Side note: Idea for the panel came fr blog posts by Christopher Fahey at graphpaper.com. He's the moderator.

The lady on the row in front of me is knitting. No lie. It looks like she's doing some complex 4-needle project. Hey, I'm not tattling....I'm the lady blogging on the row behind the knitter. Also, this is one of those conferences where you can frequently say, "The lady on the row in front of me...." because there very may well be only one. There are actually more women in this session than the last one, but we're still male-heavy around here.

Good point: Those junky ads you get in the weekly shopper work. They look horrible but they move merchandise.

Whoa. Look at the difference in the Apple and Dell website designs. Are they doing that on purpose, hitting different audiences?

OK the moderator may finally shut up. I think it was Khoi Vinh who [again, no lie] said to him, "Will you just stop?"

Do you design for yourself or your audience? How do you know them?
Vinh: We def design for our audience. We do a lot of user testing. Says they don't specifically sit down and think about class.

Elizabeth Danzico [Daylife]: They learn about their audience fr user research. Spends a lot of time with users. There's only so much you can learn about people fr that kind of research. I am making gut instinct decisions.

Brant Louck fr WWF: Says they are not only working to reach the audience you'd expect them to reach, but also to expand to the extreme sports audience. Ha, funny when talking about something else: "....this harks back to when we were a traveling carny show...., well we still are, a publicly traded carny show."
Vinh: Says they're more concerned with people being able to use the site than who the people are as a group. [Of class distinctions] I'm not sure how that would be useful when you're trying to get someone to find a button.

Danzico: They also do not concern themselves with demographic info esp when it comes to how people use the site. Instead, they watch behavior.

Moderator is totally stuck on his class thing. Wants to know, are you like your audience, do you respect them?

Louck fr WWF: [Our audience] isn't really my peer group. No kidding: This guy is dressed kind hip, with shoulder length hair. Customers in his industry are called "marks." Geez.

Vinh: If you become too conscious of class, the limitations of that framework [can harm you]. Disrespect for your client is harmful to your business. [Note: I thought when he said this, is WWF guy insulted? I think he was, see below.]

Daylife isn't doing any AB testing.

NYTimes does tons of stats analysis etc but no AB testing, but expects to do that soon. All design is done within the brand. I agree with that....their website completely reflects the brand.

WWF insults Vinh....says, if you have Steve Jobs, you don't need to test design. If not, testing is really useful. Vinh: Wait, what are you saying? big laugh. WWF: I'm saying they have Steve Jobs. It's one of those little back-and-forths that you can't quite tell: Is he serious or not.

Finally got back on wireless.

Fahey: Actually uses the term "nature vs. nurture."

Vinh: No design is inherently good or bad. Design should be appropriate for the audience.

The guy next to the knitting lady looks like Ben Affleck fr behind, right down to the unshaven jaw and slightly sticky-uppy hair.

The gist of this is, the panelists don't like the moderator's premise, that there are classes of people who are seeking different kinds of design. I don't know that I agree with him, but I get the discomfort: Americans hate talking about class. This is from forever ago. We don't like the idea that some people are better than others, that your money or your ancestry defines your character. So the idea that "good" design is "high class" and "bad" design is low class is a hard one to swallow -- true or not.

Here's something interesting: Do user-generated content and open source principles allow us to transcend this discussion?

Thank you, some guy fr Adaptive Path wants to know, so what? Does design affect mobility? Or does it reinforce status quo? Class for class' sake isn't necessarily interesting.

Vinh: This is an interesting discussion but I don't know what practical application can come of it. Technology being a flattener: [MySpace, etc.] -- A lot of that has to do with the nature of technology and design to begin with. For a century it was about controlling the flow of information and now it's about creating platforms for conversation.

Danzico: Before we were creating artifacts, but now we're creating platforms, and if people use MySpace to do something [you might have considered ugly before], we should celebrate that, that they can create that.

Guy fr audience has a great point: Don't those awful foot fungus ads work better because they're so awful? The topic is uncomfortable but the design functions to allow you to discuss a topic without necessarily associating it with yourself.

Vinh: It's an arrogant sentiment to think you can design for someone you don't respect.

WWF: I agree with that. Khoi's point is perfect.